United States v. Balint

Decision Date27 March 1922
Docket NumberNo. 480,480
Citation42 S.Ct. 301,258 U.S. 250,66 L.Ed. 604
PartiesUNITED STATES v. BALINT et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Wm. C. Herron, of Washington, D. C., for the United states.

Mr. Chief Justice TAFT delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a writ of error to the District Court under the Criminal Appeals Act of March 2, 1907. 34 Stat. 1246 (Comp. St. § 1704). Defendants in error were indicted for a violation of the Narcotic Act of December 17, 1914, 38 Stat. 785, 786 (Comp. St. §§ 6287g-6287q). The indictment charged them with unlawfully selling to another a certain amount of a derivative of opium and a certain amount of a derivative of coca leaves, not in pursuance of any written order on a form issued in blank for that purpose by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, contrary to the provisions of section 2 of the act. (Comp. St. § 6287h). The defendants demurred to the indictment on the ground that it failed to charge that they had sold the inhibited drugs knowing them to be such. The statute does not make such knowledge an element of the offense. The District Court sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment. The correctness of this ruling is the question before us.

While the general rule at common law was that the scienter was a necessary element in the indictment and proof of every crime, and this was followed in regard to statutory crimes even where the statutory definition did not in terms include it (Rex v. Sleep, 8 Cox, 472), there has been a modification of this view in respect to prosecutions under statutes the purpose of which would be obstructed by such a requirement. It is a question of legislative intent to be construed by the court. It has been objected that punishment of a person for an act in violation of law when ignorant of the facts making it so, is an absence of due process of law. But that objection is considered and overruled in Shevlin-Carpenter Co. v. Minnesota, 218 U. S. 57, 69, 70, 30 Sup. Ct. 663, 666 (54 L. Ed. 930), in which it was held that in the prohibition or punishment of particular acts, the state may in the maintenance of a public policy provide 'that he who shall do them shall do them at his peril and will not be heard to plead in defense good faith or ignorance.' Many instances of this are to be found in regulatory measures in the exercise of what is called the police power where the emphasis of the statute is evidently upon achievement of some social betterment rather than the punishment of the crimes as in cases of mala in se. Commonwealth v. Mixer, 207 Mass. 141, 93 N. E. 249, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 467, 20 Ann. Cas. 1152; Commonwealth v. Smith, 166 Mass. 370, 44 N. E. 503; Commonwealth v. Hallett, 103 Mass. 452; People v. Kibler, 106 N. Y. 321, 12 N. E. 795; State v. Kinkead, 57 Conn. 173, 17 Atl. 855; McCutcheon v. People, 69 Ill. 601; State v. Thompson, 74 Iowa, 119, 37 N. W. 104; United States v. Leathers, 6 Sawy. 17, Fed. Cas. No. 15581; United States v. Thompson, 12 Fed. 245; United States v. Mayfield, 177 Fed. 765; United States v. 36 Bottles of Gin, 210 Fed. 271, 127 C. C. A. 119; Feeley v. United States, 236 Fed. 903, 150 C. C. A. 165; Voves v. United States, 249 Fed. 191, 161 C. C. A. 227. So, too, in the collection of taxes, the importance to the public of their collection leads the Legislature to impose on the taxpayer the burden of finding out the facts upon which his liability to pay depends and meeting it at the peril of punishment. Regina v. Woodrow, 15 M. & W. 404; Bruhn v. Rex, [1909] A. C. 317. Again where one deals with others and his mere negligence may be dangerous to them, as in selling diseased food or poison, the policy of the law may, in order to stimulate proper care, require the punishment of the negligent person though he be ignorant of the noxious character of what he sells. Hobbs v. Winchester Corporation (1910) 2 K. B. Div. 471, 483.

The question before us, therefore, is one of the construction of the statute and of inference of the intent of Congress. The Narcotic Act has been held by this court to be a taxing act with the incidental purpose of minimizing the spread of addiction to the use of poisonous and demoralizing drugs. United States v. Doremus, 249 U. S. 86, 94, 39 Sup. Ct. 214, 63...

To continue reading

Request your trial
495 cases
  • United States v. Corbin Farm Service
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • January 23, 1978
    ...the field should not be a basis for conviction. The central concept is reasonableness. For example, in United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250, 252, 42 S.Ct. 301, 302, 66 L.Ed. 604 (1922), the defendant appealed his conviction for sale of narcotics, claiming in part that he did not know what ......
  • People v. Skinner
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • September 16, 1985
    ...575; Morissette v. United States (1952) 342 U.S. 246, 250-251, 72 S.Ct. 240, 243-244, 96 L.Ed. 288, cf. United States v. Balint (1922) 258 U.S. 250, 42 S.Ct. 301, 66 L.Ed. 604.) Because mens rea or wrongful intent is a fundamental aspect of criminal law, the suggestion that a defendant whos......
  • Katzev v. County of Los Angeles
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 25, 1959
    ...663, 54 L.Ed. 930; Williams v. State of North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226, 238, 65 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed. 1577; United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250, 252, 42 S.Ct. 301, 66 L.Ed. 604; People v. Darby, 114 Cal.App.2d 412, 427, 250 P.2d 743 (appeal dismissed for want of substantial federal question ......
  • State v. A.M.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • September 12, 2019
    ...See, e.g., United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277, 284-85, 64 S. Ct. 134, 88 L. Ed. 48 (1943) ; United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250, 254, 42 S. Ct. 301, 66 L. Ed. 604 (1922). And we too have said that "[t]he Legislature may create strict liability crimes," Anderson , 141 Wash.2d at 36......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
27 books & journal articles
  • Foreword: statutory interpretation and the federalization of criminal law.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 86 No. 4, June 1996
    • June 22, 1996
    ...U.S. 419 (1985). (31) 114 S. Ct. 1793 (1994). (32) X-Citement Video, 115 S. Ct. at 469. (33) Id. at 468. (34) See United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250, 252 ( 1922) (many statutes that dispense with a mens rea element "are to be found in regulatory measures in the exercise of what is called......
  • "Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude": The Constitutional and Persistent Immigration Law Doctrine.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 44 No. 1, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ...note 47, at 144 (citations omitted). (53.) 53 CONG. Rec. 5167 (Mar. 30, 1916) (statement of Rep. Sabath). (54.) United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250, 251 (1922); see also United States ex rel. Berlandi v. Reimer, 30 F. Supp. 767, 768 (S.D.N.Y. 1939) ("Moral turpitude implies something immo......
  • The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: the correct paradigm of strict liability and the problem of individual causation.
    • United States
    • UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy Vol. 18 No. 2, December 2000
    • December 22, 2000
    ...especially in the expanding regulatory area involving activities affecting public health, safety, and welfare."); United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250, 252 (1922) ("Many instances of [strict liability] are to be found in regulatory measures in the exercise of what is called the police powe......
  • Applying the presumption of mens rea to a sentencing factor: does 18 U.S.C.
    • United States
    • Suffolk University Law Review Vol. 41 No. 3, June 2008
    • June 22, 2008
    ...Connally v. Gen. Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926) (setting forth void-for-vagueness doctrine). (145.) See United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250, 251 (1922) (tracing common-law rule requiring scienter as necessary element in proof of crime). The fundamental premise for criminal liabilit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT