The holding could allow people currently incarcerated to challenge their convictions.
In criminal law, the question of intent is often critical in deciding whether a person will be convicted or acquitted of a crime. Depending on how a law is written, a prosecutor may have to prove that a person acted intentionally, knowingly, or even recklessly in order to secure a conviction. As a criminal defense lawyer Los Angeles County, CA can explain, this element can be difficult to prove — which is why lack of intent can often be used a defense to criminal charges.
When criminal statutes are written, intent is written into them where the government would have to prove that element. For example, to be convicted of assault with a deadly weapon in California, a prosecutor must demonstrate that:
- The defendant performed an act that, by its nature, would probably result directly in the application of force to someone else;
- The defendant either performed that act with a deadly weapon, OR the act would result in force that was likely to produce “great bodily injury;”
- The defendant performed that act willfully;
- When the defendant acted, he or she was aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the act would directly and probably result in the application of force to that person; and
- When the defendant acted, he or she had the present ability to apply force with a deadly weapon, or force likely to produce great bodily injury.
In this crime, the prosecutor has to show that the defendant acted “willfully” — that is the intent element for assault with a deadly weapon in California.
Not every law defines intent so clearly. In a recent Supreme Court case, the question of how intent should be applied was challenged. Should the government be required to prove that an individual acted knowingly for each element of the crime?
In Rehaif v. United States, defendant Hamid Rehair overstayed his student visa after coming to Florida and flunking out of school. He then went to a firing range, where he shot two guns. He was charged with a federal firearms offense for “possessing firearms as an alien unlawfully in the United States.” This offense requires that the individual “knowingly” violate the law. It carries a sentence of up to 10 years in prison.
At trial, Mr. Rehaif’s attorneys argued at trial that the government had to prove both that he knowingly used a firearm and that he was knowingly not legally in the United States. The trial court disagreed, and found that the prosecution only had to demonstrate that he knowingly used the gun. Mr. Rehaif was convicted and sentenced to 18 months in federal prison before being deported.
Mr. Rehaif appealed this decision. While the federal appeals court upheld the trial court’s decision, the United States Supreme Court agreed with him. It found that courts had given too little weight to the presumption that it should find specific intent in criminal law statutes even when Congress does not include them. This presumption is all the more important when there is some intent requirement in the law and the penalties for a violation are severe. The Court also pointed out that most of the case law analyzing the statute was written before Congress added the word “knowingly” to it in 1986. The case was sent back to the trial court to determine if a new trial is warranted.
This decision will likely have retroactive effect, which means that people who are currently in federal prison for violating the same law may be able to appeal their convictions. In addition, because many states model their laws on federal law, if their own gun laws regarding undocumented immigrants in possession of firearms are identical to federal law, they will be bound to follow this holding.
If you have been charged with a criminal offense, the Chambers Law Firm can help. Contact our office today at 714-760-4088 or dchambers@clfca.com to schedule a free initial consultation with a skilled criminal defense lawyer Los Angeles County, CA.
