mens rea

Borden v. United States

Issues

Does classifying a crime committed with a mental state of recklessness as a violent felony expand the reach of the Armed Criminal Career Act beyond its intended purpose?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 includes crimes in which an individual used force recklessly. Petitioner Charles Borden asserts that the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit incorrectly held that committing a crime with a mens rea of recklessness constitutes a violent felony because the mental state of recklessness does not include the intention or knowledge that would satisfy the requirement of using force “against the person of another.” Respondent United States counters that a mens rea of recklessness satisfies the element because the focus is on the “use” of the physical force, which does not discern between mental states. The outcome of this case has important implications for criminal procedure, due process rights, and the necessary interpretation of the text of the ACCA.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the “use of force” clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act encompasses crimes with a mens rea of mere recklessness.

In the course of a traffic stop in April 2017, police found Petitioner Charles Borden in possession of a pistol. United States v. Borden at 266.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Emma Cueto, 5 Supreme Court Access To Justice Cases To Watch, Law360 (Oct. 4, 2020).

Submit for publication
0

Counterman v. Colorado

Issues

Is speech a true threat, unprotected by the First Amendment, only when the speaker intended it as threatening, or is it enough for the government to show that a reasonable person would find the speech threatening?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether “true threats,” which are unprotected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, may be established under a subjective or objective test. Billy Raymond Counterman argues that historical common law practice and Supreme Court precedents require that a speaker subjectively know or intend their speech to be threatening in order for the speech to be a “true threat” unprotected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, Colorado argues that a context-driven objective test is supported by precedent and permissible under the First Amendment. This case has implications for the balance between protecting people from the harmful effects of threatening speech and preventing unjust censorship of political, religious, and artistic expression.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether, to establish that a statement is a “true threat” unprotected by the First Amendment, the government must show that the speaker subjectively knew or intended the threatening nature of the statement, or whether it is enough to show that an objective “reasonable person” would regard the statement as a threat of violence.

In 2014, a singer-songwriter named C.W. received a Facebook friend request from Billy Raymond Counterman. People v. Counterman at 1042-43. Over the next two years, Counterman proceeded to send her direct messages that C.W. found “weird” and “creepy.” Id. at 1043. C.W. never replied to any of the messages and repeatedly blocked Counterman on Facebook to prevent him from messaging her further, but he continued making new accounts and messaging her.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Nelson Tebbe for his guidance and insights into this case.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Dean v. United States

Issues

Does a federal law imposing a ten-year minimum additional sentence on a defendant who fired a gun during a violent crime apply even if the firing was an accident?

 

Petitioner Christopher Michael Dean was convicted for a bank robbery in which he fired, probably by accident, a pistol. In addition to his sentence for the bank robbery, Dean was sentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), which imposes a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence for the discharge of a firearm during a violent crime. The question presented to the Supreme Court is whether courts can apply the sentence enhancement under § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) if the discharge was accidental, or whether prosecutors must first prove that the defendant intended to fire the gun. Dean argues that prosecutors must prove that the defendant intended to fire the gun for the additional ten-year mandatory minimum to apply. The United States, on the other hand, contends that sentence enhancement statutes are not standalone criminal offenses and, therefore, that courts can apply these statutes without proof of intent. The outcome of this case could affect how often convicted individuals will receive enhanced sentences, based on whether the Supreme Court decides that prosecutors must prove intent for sentence enhancement factors, or whether the Court views sentence enhancement statutes as merely tailoring sentences to the specific facts of the underlying offense.

 

    Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

    Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), establishing a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence for a defendant who "discharge[s]" a firearm during a crime of violence, requires proof that the discharge was volitional, and not merely accidental, unintentional, or involuntary.

    Petitioner Christopher Michael Dean and his brother-in-law, Ricardo Curtis Lopez, were convicted in federal district court for a bank robbery that occurred on November 10, 2004, in Rome, Georgia. See United States v.

    Written by

    Edited by

    Submit for publication
    0

    Rehaif v. United States

    Issues

    Does the knowledge requirement in 18 U.S.C. § 924(a) apply to both the possession and immigration status elements in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), which prohibits any person unlawfully in the United States from possessing firearms or ammunition, or just to the possession element?

    This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether the government must prove that a defendant knew that they were prohibited from purchasing a firearm as a result of their residency status in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), which prohibits a person who is unlawfully in the United States from possessing any firearm or ammunition and its penalty statute, 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). Hamid Rehaif was charged with violating these provisions when he purchased a firearm after, unbeknownst to him, his visa had expired. Rehaif contends that the government must prove that he knew about his unlawful status when he had purchased the fire arm. The United States government counters that they need not prove Rehaif knew he was unlawfully in the United States. The outcome of this case will impact the degree of protection defendants have against unknowingly unlawful conduct, the nature of evidence that the prosecution must present at federal criminal trials, and the legal consequences of making an unauthorized purchase of a firearm.

    Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

    Whether the “knowingly” provision of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) applies to both the possession and status elements of a § 922(g) crime, or whether it applies only to the possession element.

    Hamid Mohamed Ahmed Ali Rehaif is a citizen of the United Arab Emirates. United States v. Rehaif at 3. Rehaif applied and was accepted to the Florida Institute of Technology (“FIT”). Id. The United States issued Rehaif an F-1 nonimmigrant student visa to study at FIT on the condition that Rehaif pursue a full course of study or engage in training following graduation.

    Written by

    Edited by

    Additional Resources

    Submit for publication
    0

    Voisine v. United States

    Issues

    Is reckless misdemeanor assault a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” under the Gun Control Act?

     

    Congress passed the Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) (“section 922”), to prohibit domestic abusers from obtaining firearms. Section 922 covers individuals convicted for a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” which includes state misdemeanors that constitute “the use of physical force.” The Supreme Court will consider whether convictions under Maine’s domestic assault law satisfy this predicate offense requirement. Stephen Voisine was convicted under Maine’s domestic assault statute, which criminalizes “the intentional, knowing, or reckless causation of bodily injury or offensive physical contract to another person.” Voisine was then convicted under section 922. But Voisine asserts that common law battery requires a mens rea greater than recklessness and that the “use of physical force” implies intentional conduct. The United States argues that recklessness meets the standard for common law battery, and contends that section 922 would be pointless if it did not cover misdemeanors like Maine’s domestic assault statute. The Court’s decision will affect the ability of misdemeanants to possess firearms and the health and safety of domestic violence victims.

    Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

    Does a misdemeanor crime with the mens rea of recklessness qualify as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” as defined by 18 U.S.C. §§ 921(a)(33)(A) and 922(g)(9)?

    In 1996, Congress passed the Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968, codified in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) (“section 922”). Section 922 prohibits individuals previously convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” from possessing firearms or ammunition. See United States v. Voisine, 778 F.3d 176, 177 (1st Cir.

    Written by

    Edited by

    Additional Resources

    Jess Bravin, Death of an Eagle Hatches Supreme Court Firearms Case, Wall Street Journal (Oct. 30, 2015).

    Submit for publication
    0
    Subscribe to mens rea