U.S. v. Pollard
| Decision Date | 17 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-5264,83-5264 |
| Citation | 724 F.2d 1438 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sharon POLLARD, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Charles Dupree (argued), Chattanooga, Tenn., for defendant-appellant.
John W. Gill, Jr., U.S. Atty., John C. Littleton (argued), Asst. U.S. Atty., Chattanooga, Tenn., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before LIVELY, Chief Judge, JONES, Circuit Judge and CELEBREZZE, Senior Circuit Judge.
The appellant was convicted for illegally acquiring food stamps in violation of 7 U.S.C. Sec. 2024(b) and appeals, arguing that the district court committed reversible error in its instructions to the jury. The district court charged the jury that the word "knowingly" as used in the instructions "means that the act was done voluntarily and intentionally and not because of mistake or by accident." The district court also instructed the jury that ignorance of the law is no excuse. The defendant requested a charge that she could be convicted only upon a finding that she knew that her acquisition of the food stamps was illegal.
On appeal the government contends that it is immaterial whether she knew that her acquisition was illegal because such knowledge is not an element of the crime. The government argues that the "knowingly" requirement of the statute refers to the defendant's purpose, not to her intent.
7 U.S.C. Sec. 2024(b) (1976) provides in pertinent part:
(b)(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (2) of this subsection, whoever knowingly uses, transfers, acquires, alters, or possesses coupons or authorization cards in any manner not authorized by this chapter or the regulations issued pursuant to this chapter shall, if such coupons or authorization cards are of a value of $100 or more, be guilty of a felony.
In United States v. Marvin, 687 F.2d 1221 (8th Cir.1982), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 1768, 76 L.Ed.2d 342 (1983), the court discussed the very issue presented by this case, considering the statutory language, the purpose of the statute and its legislative history. The court concluded that the district court should have charged the jury that the government had to prove "that the defendant knowingly did an act which the law forbids." Id. at 1227. The Marvin court did not find that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction, but that the error consisted of the district court's failure to instruct the jury that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Liparota v. United States
...to violate the law. Such intent may be determined from all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case." 4. See United States v. Pollard, 724 F.2d 1438 (CA6 1984); United States v. Marvin, 687 F.2d 1221 (CA8 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1081, 103 S.Ct. 1768, 76 L.Ed.2d 342 (1983); Uni......
-
U.S. v. Moncini, 88-5286
...(1976), The decisions in Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985), and United States v. Pollard, 724 F.2d 1438 (6th Cir.1984) (per curiam), are similarly distinguishable. Those cases construed 7 U.S.C. Sec. 2024(b), which makes it a crime to "knowingly ......
-
U.S. v. Pollard
...his acquisition or possession of food stamps was in a manner unauthorized by statute or regulations." See also United States v. Pollard, 724 F.2d 1438, 1439 (6th Cir.1984) (District Court erred in failing to give requested instruction that the jury could convict defendant only upon a findin......
-
U.S. v. Schankowski, 85-1208
...to be unauthorized by statute or regulations. 105 S.Ct. at 2088 (footnote omitted). This court anticipated Liparota in United States v. Pollard, 724 F.2d 1438 (1984). In United States v. Yermian, 468 U.S. 63, 104 S.Ct. 2936, 82 L.Ed.2d 53 (1984), the defendant was convicted of making a fals......