Criminal Law

Utilitarianism

Consequentialist: A theory of punishment that suggests that punishment is justified if its benefits to society outweigh the costs.

General Deterrence

Utilitarianism: A theory of punishment aimed at preventing future crimes from being committed by the general public through the fear of punishment. “Sending a message to criminals”

Individual Deterrence

Utilitarianism: Giving incentive for a specific individual to avoid crime, or “learn his lesson.”

Incapacitation

Utilitarianism: Includes fines, physical punishment, or physical incarceration, preventing the individual from being able to commit a crime. Does not prioritize physical incarceration when less severe punishments like ankle monitors exist

Rehabilitation

Utilitarianism: Focuses on changing the offender, rather than just punishing them. The goal of criminal punishment is to reform the offender’s behavior so they can return as a law-abiding person.

Retribution

Deontological: Moral blameworthiness justifies punishment, regardless of any costs or benefits to society. What the criminal “deserved.”

The Harm Principle

Criminal punishment should be reserved for conduct that causes harm, or that poses a serious risk of causing harm to others. Harcourt argues that this principle has been abandoned in today’s practice of punishment

The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens (1884)

Facts: After being shipwrecked at sea, Dudley and Stephens killed and ate the severely weakened cabin boy to survive until they were rescued

Holding: The court held that necessity is not a defense to murder and found Dudley and Stephens guilty. (Death Sentence, which was later commuted)

Rule: The intentional killing of an innocent person is murder, and the defense of necessity does not justify homicide, even to preserve one’s own life.

Nash v. State (2020)

Facts: Willie Nash was convicted of possessing a cell phone while confined in a Mississippi jail and received a 12-year prison sentence, which he argued was grossly disproportionate to the offense.

Holding: The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Nash’s sentence, finding that his 12-year term fell within the statutory range and was not “cruel and unusual” under the Eighth Amendment

Rule: A sentence that is within the statutory range imposed by the legislature will generally be upheld unless it is so severe that it is grossly disproportionate to the offense under the Eighth Amendment’s narrow proportionality principle.

City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson (2024) 

Fact: The City of Grants Pass, Oregon enacted ordinances banning camping and sleeping on public property, which a class of involuntarily homeless residents challenged as unconstitutional because they had no available shelter options.

Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court held that enforcing generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

Rule: The Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, which is directed at the method or kind of punishment imposed, does not prohibit the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property against homeless individuals who lack access to alternative shelter.

State v. Fries

Facts: The defendant, who held a medical marijuana card, was found in possession of marijuana while helping a friend move it and did not have a license authorizing possession or transport

Holding: The court held that the defendant’s medical marijuana card did not excuse his possession of marijuana without proper authorization

Rule: A medical marijuana card does not provide immunity from criminal liability for possession or transportation of marijuana outside the scope permitted by law.

People v. Cabrera (2008)

Facts: The defendant was convicted of reckless driving after briefly speeding and passing cars on a highway, causing an accident but no evidence of additional dangerous conduct

Holding: The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish reckless driving

Rule: Reckless driving requires proof of unreasonable and unjustifiable conduct that creates a substantial risk of harm, not merely speeding or a momentary traffic violation

Sources of Criminal Law

1. Common Law

2. Modern Penal Code

3. Federal and State Statutes

Where to Find Elements of Criminal Law

See Jury Instructions

Massachusetts v. Narvaez (2022)

Facts: The defendant was charged under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266 §103 for vandalizing a jail cell with a “noxious or filthy substance” after he urinated inside and outside his cell, and the trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause

Holding: The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the dismissal of the criminal complaint, holding that urine is not a “noxious or filthy substance” within the meaning of §103, so the complaint lacked probable cause.

Rule: Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266 § 103, a substance must qualify as a noxious or filthy substance to support a charge for vandalism under that statute, and ordinary urine does not meet that statutory definition.

Elements of Crimes

1. Actus Reus

2. Mens Rea

3. Causation

4. Attendant Circumstances

What Satisfies an Actus Reus?

A voluntary act (willful bodily movement)

• Even in accidents

What are Some Exceptions for Actus Reus?

Sleepwalking, Hypnosis, etc. (But these are hard to prove)

Exceptions for When Omission (Inaction) is Punished

1. Special relationships

2. A contractual obligation

3. The assumption of care

4. Failing to provide assistance after putting someone in harm’s way

5. When a statute expressly creates a duty to act (failing to pay taxes, or failing to report child abuse)

Causation

The legal connection between a person’s conduct and the resulting harm

• Did the defendant’s actions actually cause the prohibited outcome?

Is Causation Always Stated?

No. Some statutes do not include a result element

• Ex. Burglary only requires that someone breaks and enters into a home, doesn’t require harm to anyone

What are the Two Types of Causation?

1. Factual causation (but-for cause)

2. Legal (proximate) causation

Factual causation (But-for cause)

The harm would not have occurred but for the defendant’s actions

Legal (proximate) causation

The defendant’s act is legally responsible for the harm; the result must be a foreseeable consequence of the act

Ex. Driving when you know you get seizures = reasonable foreseeability

What Can Break Proximate Causation?

1. Intervening causes: a free, deliberate act by another (e.g., victim) may break the causal chain 

2. Foreseeability: the harm must be reasonably foreseeable 

Attendant Circumstances 

The surrounding facts that make the conduct criminal 

Actus Reus

Only satisfied by a voluntary act

Involuntary Act

Any act resulting from “a reflex or convulsion; a bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep; conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion; or a bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual.”

Elements of Mens Rea (Mental State)

1. Intent

2. Purpose

3. Knowledge

4. Recklessness

5. Negligence

6. Strict Liability

Intent

A person acts intentionally when it is her purpose (i.e., her conscious object or desire) to perform an act or cause a result.

• Can also include knowledge (broad sense)

  • Only intent would be “narrow sense”

Specific Intent

1. Do some some further act

2. Achieve some additional consequence

Purpose

A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense when:

1. It is the person’s conscious object:

   1. To engage in conduct of that nature, or

   2. To cause such a result

2. The person:

   1. Is aware that the circumstances, or

   2. Believes or hopes that they exist

Ex. Accomplice Liability: A retail employee sells a lawful product to a customer who intends to use it to commit a crime.

• Purposely satisfied: The employee acts purposely only if her conscious object was to aid or facilitate the commission of the crime.

• Purposely not satisfied: An employee who knew the item would be used for a crime but was indifferent to that fact

Knowledge

A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when:

1. The person is aware that:

   1. his conduct is of that nature, or

   2. such attendant circumstances exist.

2. The person is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause that result

Willful Blindness (Deliberate Ignorance) Doctrine

1. Awareness of a high probability of a fact and

2. Deliberately avoided gaining positive knowledge of that fact

   1. Some courts also include a third requirement—the defendant’s motive for deliberately avoiding positive knowledge was to preserve a defense in the event of a prosecution.

Recklessness

A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when:

• He consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that

  • The material element exists, or

  • The market element will result from his conduct

• The risk must be of such nature and degree that, considering:

  • The nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct, and

  • The circumstances known to the actor

• The disregard of the risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation.

Usually the baseline or default mens rea when absent in a statute

Negligence

A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when:

• He should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that:

  • The material element exists, or

  • It will result from his conduct

• The failure to perceive the risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.

What is the difference between negligence and recklessness?

Actor’s awareness of the risk

Strict Liability

• Statutory rape

• Public Welfare Offices

Generally the default when a statute is silent on Mens Rea

Defense for Mens Rea (Not Strict Liability)

• Mistake of Fact

Exceptions for Defense for No Mens Rea in a Statute

1. “offenses which constitute violations” (meaning offenses for which the only available penalty is a fine) and

2. if “a legislative purpose to impose absolute liability . . . plainly appears”

State v. Barnes (2013)

Facts: Christopher L. Barnes was convicted of simple possession of marijuana and possession of a controlled substance in a local confinement facility after marijuana fell from his pants while he was at the Wayne County jail following a DUI arrest and transport.

Holding: No. A defendant’s involuntary presence in a confinement facility does not negate the voluntary act requires for a conviction of possession of a controlled substance in that facility.

RULE: A defendant's involuntary presence in a confinement facility, due to being arrested and transported there by law enforcement, does not negate the 'voluntary act' element for the crime of possessing a controlled substance in that facility. The voluntary act is the knowing possession of the substance itself, not the voluntary entry into the facility.

Elonis v. United States (2015)

Fact: Elonis was convicted under a federal threat statute for posting violent rap-style statements about his estranged wife and others on Facebook, even though he claimed the posts were artistic expressions and not intended as real threats.

Holding: No. To secure a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), the prosecution must show that the defendant had some subjective mental state regarding the threatening nature of the communication

RULE: A conviction for transmitting a threat in interstate commerce under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) requires proof of a defendant’s culpable mental state regarding the threatening nature of the communication; it is not sufficient to prove only that a reasonable person would have regarded the communication as a threat.

Objective intent

Focuses on how a reasonable person would interpret the defendant’s conduct or words.

Subjective Intent

Requires proof that the defendant intended, knew, or was aware that their conduct would cause a particular result.

Reading Statutes: Textualism

What it says on paper

Reading Statutes: Purposivism

What the intent was when making it

Ex. Ex. Looking at statutes and why they were made that way, what is their purpose? To protect _____ (children, veterans, animals, women, etc.)

Canons of Construction

A rule or principle courts use to interpret criminal statutes when the statutory language is unclear or ambiguous.

Language Canons: Negative implication canon 

When a statute expressly includes certain items, courts presume the legislature intentionally excluded others. 

Language Canons: Related Statutes Canon

Looking at another, similar statute because it defines a word when that definition is missing from the original statute. 

Language Canons: Associated Words Canon

If a word is vague or broad, courts interpret it in light of the surrounding words in the statute.

• Ex. “Guns, knives, clubs, or other weapons”

  • The phrase “other weapons” would be interpreted to mean similar handheld weapons, not tanks or nuclear devices.

Substantive Canons: Rule of Lenity

If a criminal statute is ambiguous after all other interpretive tools are used, the court must interpret it in favor of the defendant.

• Rationale: People shouldn’t be punished under unclear laws

• Last resort for a court to interpret a statute

Substantive Canons: Mens Rea Canon

If a criminal law doesn’t clearly say what mental state applies, courts usually assume the defendant must have acted with some level of intent, knowledge, or recklessness—not by accident.

Wooden v. United States (2022)

Facts: Wooden broke into a mini-storage facility and burglarized ten separate storage units during a single criminal episode, leading the government to argue that the convictions counted as ten separate “occasions” under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).

Holding: The Supreme Court held that Wooden’s burglaries occurred on a single “occasion” for purposes of the ACCA, so the sentencing enhancement did not apply.

RULES: Multiple offenses are committed on a single “occasion” under the ACCA when they arise from one continuous criminal episode, considering factors such as timing, proximity, and the nature of the conduct.

How to Determine if Crimes Occurred at Different “Occasions”

• Timing (were the offenses close in time?)

• Location (did they occur in the same place?)

• Character and relationship of the offenses (examining whether the conduct was similar or intertwined, sharing a common scheme or purpose.)

Void for Vagueness

Congress has to write statutes that give ordinary people fair warnings about what the law demands of them

Criminal Process

1. Investigation

2. The Charging Decision

3. Bail and Pretrial Release\

4. Plea Bargaining

5. The Trial

6. Sentencing

7. Criminal Appeals

Investigation: 4th Amendment

Grants people the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” provides rules for things like when a police officer can pull your car over or search your home.

• If police enter your home without a warrant, any evidence they find is then suppressed

Fifth Amendment

The foundation for the famous Miranda warnings, which inform arrestees of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney.

• See also: Double Jeopardy Rule

Exceptions for Double Jeopardy Rule

• Hung Jury, Civil vs. Criminal for the Same Case

• Mistrial

• Different courts can charge you for the same crime if they both have jurisdiction

The Charging Decision: Line Prosecutors

Powers:

1. Make decisions on cases everyday

2. Sometimes use internal policies for guidance for charging decisions

3. Free to choose cases to pursue for any reason or no reason at all

4. Technically prosecutors cannot make investigative or charging decisions based on race, but not always practiced

   1. To succeed in a discriminatory prosecution claim, a defendant must show both that the decision to prosecute “had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.”

5. Constraint on prosecutors: There must be probable cause to believe the defendant has committed an offense to charge him with a crime.

   1. prohibits basing charging decisions on the defendant’s race or religion, or retaliating against the defendant for exercising certain constitutional rights.

Charging Instruments

What marks the formal initiation of a criminal case. It notifies the defendant of the criminal statute(s) he is alleged to have violated, as well as the factual basis of the allegations.

Two types of Charging instruments

• Two types of Charging instruments

  • Issued by prosecutors

• An Indictment

  • Issued by grand juries

Defendants who are detained during pretrial proceedings:

1. More likely to be convicted

2. Less likely to have their charges reduced

3. Likely to have longer sentences than those who were released before trial

4. More likely to plead guilty as it’s their quickest way to get out of jail

   1. People are coerced into pleading guilty by allowing them quicker sentences if they agree to do so

The Constitution prohibits pretrial punishment, but allows for pretrial detention to:

1. the extent necessary to secure a defendant’s appearance at trial or

2. for defendants “who are found after an adversary hearing to pose a threat to the safety of individuals or to the community which no condition of release can dispel.”

Judges at a Bail Hearing:

1. Order a defendant released at his own recognizance: The court lets the person go home without paying money because it trusts them to come back to court.

2. Set bail

   1. Or deny bail entirely (rare)

Two Important Features of Criminal Trials:

Two Important Features of Criminal Trials:

1. Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (Due Process Clause)

2. The Jury’s Role and Jury Instructions

Jury Instructions

Based on jurisdictionally developed models (patterns) which are based on statutes and case law

Ex. if the Supreme Court of Nebraska were to issue an opinion on the meaning of the term “damage” in its arson statute, Nebraska jurors might be instructed on that interpretation in future arson trials.

When sentencing occurs

After a guilty plea or guilty verdict

Federal Sentencing

• Based on advisory sentencing guidelines

• Sentence determined by:

  • Offense level

  • Criminal history

• Adjustments for factors like acceptance of responsibility

State Sentencing Systems

• Vary widely

• Some states use detailed guidelines

• Others give judges broad discretion

  • Ex. California

    • Judges choose between lower, middle, or upper term

    • Limited discretion beyond thatt

    • Availability of probation, parole, good-time credits varies by state

Felony vs. Misdemeanor

• Felony:

  • Punishable by more than one year imprisonment

  • Served in prison

  • Carries collateral consequences

    • Firearm prohibition (18 U.S.C. § 922(g))

    • Possible loss of voting rights

• Misdemeanor:

  • Punishable by one year or less

  • Served in jail

Criminal Appeals: Right to Appeal

After a guilty verdict, defendant has a right to appeal

• Many appeals involve non-criminal law doctrine issues:

  • Evidentiary rulings

  • Sentencing decisions

• Two Common Criminal-Law-Related Appellate Claims

  • Jury Instructions challenges

  • Sufficiency of the evidence challenges

    • Most criminal law cases focus on one or both

Criminal Appeals: Sufficiency of the Evidence

Evidence was legally insufficient to support conviction

• Standard of review:

  • Evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict

  • Court assumes jury resolved factual disputes for prosecution

• Limited trial use:

  • Appellate opinions cannot be argued to jury

  • May support requested jury instructions in some cases

Bench Trials

Just the Judge

• Better in cases that are based in law and not fact

Defendants Decide

Jury Trials

Unanimous – in most criminal courts

Sentencing: Mitigation

Factors that Contribute to a Lower-End of the Sentencing Guidelines

• Ways to Achieve:

  • Take into consideration outside circumstances

  • Criminal History

  • Look at judges past convictions for similar cases, as tell them why it’s similar or different

Sentencing: Aggravation

Factors that Contribute to a Higher-End of the Sentencing Guidelines

• Victim Testimony

  • Impact of Crime

• Might be Included in Statutes (Same with Mitigation)

Larceny Elements

• Trespassory Taking

  • No Consent

• Taking or Carrying Away

  • Leave the victim’s control, physical distance from owner

• Personal Property of Another

  • Must belong to someone else

• Intent (at the time of taking) to Permanently Deprive

Commonwealth v. Liebenow (2014)

Facts: Liebenow, a scrap-metal collector, was convicted after a jury-waived trial of larceny under $250 for taking steel pipes from a private construction site, where the trial judge erroneously required him to prove his belief that the property was abandoned was objectively reasonable despite his claim that he honestly believed it was abandoned.

Holding: Yes. A defendant’s subjective honest belief that property was abandoned negates the specific intent element of larceny, and the trial judge erred by requiring an objectively reasonable belief.

RULE: For a specific intent crime like larceny, a defendant's honest, good-faith belief that they are entitled to the property is a valid affirmative defense that negates the required criminal intent, even if that belief is objectively unreasonable.

Marsh v. Commonwealth (2011)

Facts: Marsh took his girlfriend’s jewelry without permission, pawned it for money, promised to redeem and return it but lacked the present or prospective ability to do so, and ultimately failed to return all of the items.

Holding: Yes. A defendant who pawns another's property possesses the intent to permanently deprive if they lack the substantial ability to redeem it, rendering their stated intent to return the property an invalid defense to larceny

RULE: A larceny conviction requires proof that the defendant intended to permanently deprive the owner of property, which may be shown by evidence that the defendant lacked the present or prospective ability to return the property unconditionally.

Robbery Elements

• Taking

• Personal Property of another

• Against his will

• From his person or immediate presence

• By for or fear

  • Force = struggle (Lear v. State)

• With intent to permanently deprive him of it

Lear v. State (1931)

Facts: On the morning of August 12, 1931, as the store owner was unrolling a bag of silver on the counter, Lear entered the store, grabbed the bag from the owner’s hands without saying anything or using any weapon or threat, and ran out with approximately $33.

Holding: No, the act of snatching the bag of money without additional force or threats does not constitute robbery.

RULE: To constitute robbery, the force used to take property must be intended to overpower the victim or prevent resistance, not merely the force inherent in the act of snatching the property. A sudden, unopposed snatching from a person's possession, without a struggle or threat, is larceny, not robbery.

Embezzlement

• The fraudulent conversion of the

  • I.e: Treating something as if it’s your own

• Property of another

• By someone who is already in lawful possession of it

  • Needs no personal gain for the defendant (State v. Lough)

False Pretenses

• Obtained Title to

  • Proof that the thing is yours (Login for a computer, receipt, deeds)

• Another’s property

• By false representation of a material fact

  • You lied to someone to get the title (vs. Embezzlement: you obtain it lawfully)

• With the intent to defraud the victim

State v. Lough (2006)

Facts: Providence police officer John Lough was entrusted with a confiscated child’s minibike to take it to the police station but instead discarded it behind a dumpster and was later convicted of embezzlement and fraudulent conversion

Holding: Yes. A person who disposes of property entrusted to them converts that property 'to his or her own use' within the meaning of the embezzlement statute, regardless of whether they received any personal benefit.

RULE: Fraudulent conversion 'to one's own use' under an embezzlement statute occurs when a person entrusted with property treats it as their own, such as by disposing of it, and does not require proof that the person derived a personal benefit or gain from the act.

People v. Phebus (1982)

Facts: Defendant switched a $1.88 price tag from a low-priced shelf to a $6.53 shelf, his wife picked up the mis-tagged item and they paid $1.88 at checkout, after which he was stopped by store detectives and charged with larceny, but the circuit court quashed the information concluding the evidence supported false pretenses rather than larceny.

Holding: No. The defendant's actions constitute the crime of obtaining property by false pretenses, not larceny.

RULE: When an individual obtains property by fraudulently misrepresenting its price, such as by switching price tags, the crime committed is obtaining property by false pretenses, not larceny. The determinative factor is the owner's intent to pass title to the property; if title is intended to pass, even due to fraud, the offense is false pretenses.

Extortion

• The obtaining of

• Property of another

• With his consent

• Induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right

  • Under color of official right: Public Officials

United States v. Xiao Qin Zhou (2005)

Facts: Appellants were convicted for participating in a gang-related scheme culminating in a July 2001 armed confrontation at a gambling parlor, but the evidence did not show they sought property by inducing fear, which underlay their extortion and conspiracy convictions.

Holding: No. The evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to prove extortion because the government failed to establish the essential element that the defendants sought to obtain property with the victim's consent.

RULE: A conviction for extortion under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, requires proof that the defendant obtained property with the victim's consent, induced by the wrongful use of force or fear. This element of consent, which provides the victim a choice however grim, distinguishes extortion from robbery, which is a taking against the victim's will.

People v. Bollaert (2016)

Facts: Kevin Bollaert operated websites that posted private, intimate photographs and personal identifying information of numerous individuals without consent and then directed them to a second site where victims were told they could pay a fee to have the content removed, resulting in convictions for extortion and unlawful use of personal identifying information.

Holding: No, the Communications Decency Act (CDA) does not immunize the website operator.

RULE: To convict under Penal Code § 530.5 and extortion statutes, the prosecution must show a defendant willfully obtained personal identifying information for an unlawful purpose and used threats to obtain money, and a website operator who materially contributes to unlawful content may be treated as an “information content provider” not immune under the Communications Decency Act.

Arson

• The malicious

  • Mens rea: Malicious i.e. (ill intent)

• Burning of

• The dwelling of another

Possession

Knowing or intending to possess a controlled substance

Drug Possession Elements

• Any person knowingly or intentionally

• Possessing

• A controlled substance

Actual Possession

Situations in which there is evidence that a person had physical control of contraband

• Requires only physical control over drugs

State v. Fries (2008)

Police stopped Fries and discovered marijuana in his possession, which he claimed was not his but that he was holding temporarily as a favor for a friend, leading him to challenge the legality of the search and the resulting possession charge.

• Holding: Yes. An individual who knowingly has physical control of and transports a controlled substance at the direction of its lawful owner possesses that substance under Oregon law.

• RULE: Knowingly exercising physical control over a controlled substance constitutes "actual possession" under Oregon law, regardless of whether the individual is acting at the direction of the substance's lawful owner.

Constructive Possession

Circumstances where contraband is found near a person or in a place that he may have some control over—such as in his car or home.

Rivas v. United States (2001)

Police blocked Rivas’s parked car without reasonable suspicion, approached the vehicle, and recovered contraband from inside, which the government argued Rivas constructively possessed based on his proximity and control over the area

• Holding: No. A passenger in someone else’s car may not be convicted of constructive possession solely on the basis that drugs were in plain view and conveniently accessible.

• RULE: To prove constructive possession of contraband found in an automobile, the government must show more than the defendant's mere presence and proximity to the contraband in plain view. There must be additional evidence—a word, deed, or other factor—that demonstrates the defendant's specific intent to exercise dominion or control over the contraband.

Johnson v. Mississippi (2024) 

While executing a bench warrant, officers approached Johnson in a parked vehicle, saw him appear to shove something under the passenger seat, and after obtaining a warrant found drugs and counterfeit bills there, though none were found on his person and the car was registered to someone else.

• Holding: The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no error in the trial court’s denial of Johnson’s motions and no lack of sufficient evidence.

• RULE: To sustain a criminal conviction, the evidence must be sufficient such that any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and a verdict will be upheld unless its weight flies in the face of the credible evidence.

Elements for Actual and Constructive Possession

• Both possessed the drug

• And did so knowingly

United States v. Terry Pierre Louis (2017)

Louis drove a Nissan carrying sealed boxes from a shipyard and fled when officers converged, and although the boxes contained cocaine, the court held his presence and flight alone did not prove he knew the contraband’s nature.

• Holding: No. Evidence of a defendant's presence and flight is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew the specific nature of the contraband he possessed was a controlled substance.

• RULE: To obtain a conviction for possession of or conspiracy to possess a controlled substance, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the substance in question was a controlled substance. Evidence of a defendant's mere presence at the scene and flight from law enforcement is insufficient, on its own, to establish this specific knowledge.

Willful Blindness Elements (Alternative to Knowledge)

• aware of a high probability of a fact and 

• deliberately avoided gaining positive knowledge of that fact