liparota
argued
march
decided
may
federal
statute
governing
food
stamp
fraud
provides
whoever
knowingly
uses
transfers
acquires
alters
possesses
coupons
authorization
cards
manner
authorized
statute
regulations
shall
guilty
criminal
offense
petitioner
indicted
violation
jury
trial
federal
district
government
proved
petitioner
three
occasions
purchased
food
stamps
undercover
department
agriculture
agent
substantially
less
face
value
refused
petitioner
proposed
jury
instruction
government
must
prove
petitioner
knowingly
act
law
forbids
purposely
intending
violate
law
rather
petitioner
objection
instructed
jury
government
prove
petitioner
acquired
possessed
food
stamps
manner
authorized
statute
regulations
knowingly
willfully
acquired
stamps
petitioner
convicted
appeals
affirmed
held
absent
indication
contrary
purpose
statute
language
legislative
history
government
prosecution
violation
must
prove
defendant
knew
acquisition
possession
food
stamps
manner
unauthorized
statute
regulations
pp
criminal
offenses
requiring
mens
rea
generally
disfavored
status
failure
congress
explicitly
unambiguously
indicate
whether
mens
rea
required
signal
departure
background
assumption
criminal
law
moreover
interpret
statute
dispense
mens
rea
criminalize
broad
range
apparently
innocent
conduct
addition
requiring
mens
rea
case
keeping
established
principle
ambiguity
concerning
ambit
criminal
statutes
resolved
favor
lenity
pp
fact
directed
primarily
stores
authorized
accept
food
stamps
program
participants
differs
wording
structure
provides
hoever
presents
causes
presented
coupons
payment
redemption
knowing
received
transferred
used
manner
violation
statute
regulations
fails
show
congressional
purpose
require
proof
defendant
knowledge
illegality
prosecution
shown
requiring
knowledge
illegality
prosecution
supported
obvious
compelling
policy
reasons
assumed
congress
intended
make
distinction
pp
yermian
support
interpretation
dispensing
requirement
government
prove
defendant
knowledge
illegality
offense
public
welfare
offense
depends
mental
element
consists
forbidden
acts
omissions
pp
brennan
delivered
opinion
marshall
blackmun
rehnquist
stevens
joined
white
filed
dissenting
opinion
burger
joined
post
powell
took
part
consideration
decision
case
william
huyck
appointment
argued
cause
filed
briefs
petitioner
charles
rothfeld
argued
cause
pro
hac
vice
brief
solicitor
general
lee
assistant
attorney
general
trott
deputy
solicitor
general
claiborne
justice
brennan
delivered
opinion
federal
statute
governing
food
stamp
fraud
provides
whoever
knowingly
uses
transfers
acquires
alters
possesses
coupons
authorization
cards
manner
authorized
statute
regulations
subject
fine
imprisonment
stat
amended
question
presented
whether
prosecution
provision
government
must
prove
defendant
knew
acting
manner
authorized
statute
regulations
petitioner
frank
liparota
brother
moon
sandwich
shop
chicago
illinois
indicted
acquiring
possessing
food
stamps
violation
department
agriculture
authorized
petitioner
restaurant
accept
food
stamps
app
trial
government
proved
petitioner
three
occasions
purchased
food
stamps
undercover
department
agriculture
agent
substantially
less
face
value
first
occasion
agent
informed
petitioner
worth
food
stamps
sell
agent
accepted
petitioner
offer
consummated
transaction
back
room
restaurant
petitioner
brother
similar
transaction
occurred
one
week
later
agent
sold
worth
coupons
approximately
one
month
later
petitioner
bought
worth
food
stamps
agent
submitting
case
jury
district
rejected
petitioner
proposed
specific
intent
instruction
instructed
jury
government
must
prove
defendant
knowingly
act
law
forbids
purposely
intending
violate
law
concluding
specific
intent
crime
rather
knowledge
case
district
instead
instructed
jury
follows
word
knowingly
used
instructions
means
defendant
realized
aware
nature
conduct
act
ignorance
mistake
accident
knowledge
may
proved
defendant
conduct
facts
circumstances
surrounding
case
petitioner
appealed
conviction
appeals
seventh
circuit
arguing
district
erred
refusing
instruct
jury
specific
intent
required
prosecution
appeals
rejected
petitioner
arguments
decision
conflicted
recent
decisions
three
courts
appeals
granted
certiorari
reverse
ii
controversy
parties
concerns
mental
state
government
must
show
proving
petitioner
acted
manner
authorized
statute
regulations
government
argues
petitioner
violated
statute
knew
acquired
possessed
food
stamps
fact
acquisition
possession
manner
authorized
statute
regulations
according
government
mens
rea
mind
morissette
necessary
conviction
petitioner
claims
government
interpretation
dispensing
mens
rea
dispenses
morally
blameworthy
element
definition
crime
avoid
allegedly
untoward
result
claims
individual
violates
statute
knows
acquired
possessed
food
stamps
also
knows
done
unauthorized
manner
task
determine
meaning
congress
intended
definition
elements
criminal
offense
entrusted
legislature
particularly
case
federal
crimes
solely
creatures
statute
hudson
cranch
respect
element
issue
case
however
congress
explicitly
spelled
mental
state
required
although
congress
certainly
intended
use
word
knowingly
require
mental
state
respect
element
crime
defined
interpretations
proffered
parties
accord
congressional
intent
extent
beyond
words
provide
little
guidance
either
interpretation
accord
ordinary
usage
legislative
history
statute
contains
nothing
clarify
congressional
purpose
point
absent
indication
contrary
purpose
language
legislative
history
statute
believe
requires
showing
defendant
knew
conduct
unauthorized
statute
regulations
contention
injury
amount
crime
inflicted
intention
provincial
transient
notion
universal
persistent
mature
systems
law
belief
freedom
human
consequent
ability
duty
normal
individual
choose
good
evil
morissette
supra
thus
gypsum
noted
ertainly
far
simple
omission
appropriate
phrase
statutory
definition
necessary
justify
dispensing
intent
requirement
criminal
offenses
requiring
mens
rea
generally
disfavored
status
similarly
case
failure
congress
explicitly
unambiguously
indicate
whether
mens
rea
required
signal
departure
background
assumption
criminal
law
construction
particularly
appropriate
interpret
statute
otherwise
criminalize
broad
range
apparently
innocent
conduct
instance
declares
criminal
use
transfer
acquire
alter
possess
food
stamps
manner
authorized
statute
regulations
statute
provides
oupons
issued
eligible
households
shall
used
purchase
food
retail
food
stores
approved
participation
food
stamp
program
prices
prevailing
stores
emphasis
added
see
also
cfr
seems
authorized
use
strict
reading
statute
requirement
thus
render
criminal
food
stamp
recipient
example
used
stamps
purchase
food
store
unknown
charged
higher
normal
prices
food
stamp
program
participants
reading
also
render
criminal
nonrecipient
food
stamps
possessed
stamps
mistakenly
sent
mail
due
administrative
error
altered
tearing
transferred
throwing
away
course
congress
intended
broad
range
conduct
made
illegal
perhaps
understanding
prosecutors
exercise
discretion
avoid
harsh
results
however
given
paucity
material
suggesting
congress
intend
reluctant
adopt
sweeping
interpretation
addition
requiring
mens
rea
keeping
longstanding
recognition
principle
ambiguity
concerning
ambit
criminal
statutes
resolved
favor
lenity
rewis
see
also
gypsum
supra
bass
bell
universal
credit
application
rule
lenity
ensures
criminal
statutes
provide
fair
warning
concerning
conduct
rendered
illegal
strikes
appropriate
balance
legislature
prosecutor
defining
criminal
liability
see
bass
supra
ecause
seriousness
criminal
penalties
criminal
punishment
usually
represents
moral
condemnation
community
legislatures
courts
define
criminal
activity
although
rule
lenity
applied
conflict
implied
expressed
intent
congress
provides
interpretive
guideline
congressional
purpose
unclear
instant
case
rule
directly
supports
petitioner
contention
government
must
prove
knowledge
illegality
convict
government
argues
however
comparison
companion
demonstrates
congressional
purpose
require
proof
defendant
knowledge
illegality
prosecution
section
directed
primarily
stores
authorized
accept
food
stamps
program
participants
provides
hoever
presents
causes
presented
coupons
payment
redemption
knowing
received
transferred
used
manner
violation
statute
regulations
subject
fine
imprisonment
emphasis
added
government
contrasts
language
word
knowingly
placed
differently
whoever
knowingly
uses
transfers
emphasis
added
since
undeniably
requires
knowledge
illegality
suggested
inference
difference
wording
structure
two
sections
indicates
government
urges
distinction
mental
state
required
violation
required
violation
sensible
one
absent
requirement
mens
rea
grocer
presenting
food
stamps
payment
might
criminally
liable
even
customer
employees
illegally
procured
transferred
stamps
without
grocer
knowledge
requiring
knowledge
illegality
prosecution
allegedly
necessary
avoid
kind
vicarious
criminal
liability
since
offense
defined
using
transferring
acquiring
altering
possessing
food
stamps
unauthorized
manner
involve
possibility
vicarious
liability
argues
government
congress
reason
impose
similar
knowledge
illegality
requirement
section
find
argument
persuasive
difference
wording
slender
reed
support
attempted
distinction
government
argument
accepted
lead
demise
distinction
congress
said
desired
according
government
congress
intend
knowledge
illegality
requirement
intend
requirement
anyone
violated
present
ed
caus
ed
presented
coupons
payment
redemption
unauthorized
manner
person
seemingly
also
use
transfer
red
acquir
ed
alter
ed
possess
ed
coupons
similarly
unauthorized
manner
thus
violated
follows
government
able
prosecute
violator
well
required
government
prove
knowledge
illegality
result
government
always
avoid
proving
knowledge
illegality
food
stamp
fraud
cases
simply
bringing
prosecutions
congress
wanted
require
government
prove
knowledge
illegality
food
stamp
fraud
cases
thus
chose
peculiar
way
similar
reasons
government
arguments
congress
plausible
reason
require
knowledge
illegality
prosecutions
equally
unpersuasive
grocers
participants
food
stamp
program
benefit
extensive
informational
campaign
concerning
authorized
use
handling
food
stamps
app
yet
government
prove
knowledge
illegality
prosecuting
grocers
burden
prosecuting
third
parties
may
well
opportunity
acquaint
rules
governing
food
stamps
immediately
obvious
congress
concerned
imposing
strict
liability
grocers
similar
concerns
imposing
strict
liability
nonparticipants
program
point
congress
chosen
enact
statute
along
lines
doubt
policy
arguments
sides
question
whether
statute
desirable
rather
conclude
policy
underlying
construction
neither
obvious
compelling
must
assume
absence
discussion
issue
legislative
history
congress
enact
statute
government
advances
two
additional
arguments
support
reading
statute
first
government
contends
decision
last
term
yermian
supports
interpretation
yermian
involved
prosecution
violation
federal
false
statement
statute
parties
agreed
statute
required
proof
least
defendant
knowingly
willfully
made
false
statement
thus
unlike
instant
case
parties
yermian
agreed
government
prove
defendant
mens
rea
controversy
yermian
centered
whether
government
also
prove
defendant
knew
false
statement
made
matter
within
jurisdiction
federal
agency
respect
element
although
held
government
prove
actual
knowledge
federal
agency
jurisdiction
explicitly
reserved
question
whether
culpability
necessary
respect
even
jurisdictional
element
contrast
government
instant
case
argues
mens
rea
required
respect
element
crime
finally
yermian
found
statutory
language
unambiguous
legislative
history
supported
interpretation
statute
issue
case
differs
respects
second
government
contends
offense
public
welfare
offense
defined
morissette
depend
mental
element
consist
forbidden
acts
omissions
yet
offense
issue
differs
substantially
public
welfare
offenses
previously
recognized
previous
instances
congress
rendered
criminal
type
conduct
reasonable
person
know
subject
stringent
public
regulation
may
seriously
threaten
community
health
safety
thus
freed
examined
federal
statute
making
illegal
receive
possess
unregistered
firearm
holding
government
prove
recipient
unregistered
hand
grenades
knew
unregistered
noted
one
hardly
surprised
learn
possession
hand
grenades
innocent
act
see
also
international
minerals
chemical
similarly
dotterweich
held
corporate
officer
violate
food
drug
cosmetic
act
firm
shipped
adulterated
misbranded
drugs
even
though
consciousness
wrongdoing
totally
wanting
see
also
balint
distinctions
cases
instant
case
clear
food
stamp
hardly
compared
hand
grenade
see
freed
unauthorized
acquisition
possession
food
stamps
compared
selling
adulterated
drugs
dotterweich
iii
hold
prosecution
violation
government
must
prove
defendant
knew
acquisition
possession
food
stamps
manner
unauthorized
statute
regulations
holding
put
unduly
heavy
burden
government
prosecuting
violators
prove
petitioner
knew
acquisition
possession
food
stamps
unauthorized
example
government
need
show
knowledge
specific
regulations
governing
food
stamp
acquisition
possession
must
government
introduce
extraordinary
evidence
conclusively
demonstrate
petitioner
state
mind
rather
criminal
prosecution
requiring
mens
rea
government
may
prove
reference
facts
circumstances
surrounding
case
petitioner
knew
conduct
unauthorized
illegal
reversed
footnotes
hoever
knowingly
uses
transfers
acquires
alters
possesses
coupons
authorization
cards
manner
authorized
chapter
regulations
issued
pursuant
chapter
shall
coupons
authorization
cards
value
guilty
felony
shall
upon
first
conviction
thereof
fined
imprisoned
five
years
upon
second
subsequent
conviction
thereof
shall
imprisoned
less
six
months
five
years
may
also
fined
coupons
authorization
cards
value
less
shall
guilty
misdemeanor
upon
first
conviction
thereof
shall
fined
imprisoned
one
year
upon
second
subsequent
conviction
thereof
shall
imprisoned
one
year
may
also
fined
addition
penalties
person
convicted
felony
misdemeanor
violation
subsection
may
suspended
participation
food
stamp
program
additional
period
eighteen
months
consecutive
period
suspension
mandated
section
title
food
stamps
provided
government
meet
certain
criteria
see
generally
may
used
purchase
food
retail
food
stores
restaurant
receives
proper
authorization
department
agriculture
may
receive
food
stamps
payment
meals
certain
special
circumstances
relevant
app
instruction
proffered
petitioner
drawn
devitt
blackmar
federal
jury
practice
instructions
instruction
reads
entirety
crime
charged
case
serious
crime
requires
proof
specific
intent
defendant
convicted
specific
intent
term
implies
means
general
intent
commit
act
establish
specific
intent
government
must
prove
defendant
knowingly
act
law
forbids
purposely
intending
violate
law
intent
may
determined
facts
circumstances
surrounding
case
see
pollard
marvin
cert
denied
faltico
cert
denied
required
mental
state
may
course
different
different
elements
crime
bailey
freed
brennan
concurring
judgment
see
generally
robinson
grall
element
analysis
defining
criminal
liability
model
penal
code
beyond
stan
rev
case
instance
parties
agree
petitioner
must
known
acquired
possessed
food
stamps
disagree
whether
mental
element
required
respect
unauthorized
nature
acquisition
possession
also
recognized
mental
element
criminal
law
encompasses
two
possibilities
specific
general
intent
see
bailey
supra
gypsum
freed
supra
brennan
concurring
judgment
model
penal
code
instance
recognizes
four
mental
purpose
knowledge
recklessness
negligence
ali
model
penal
code
prop
draft
case
petitioner
argues
respect
element
issue
knowledge
required
government
contends
mental
state
required
respect
element
course
congress
must
act
within
applicable
constitutional
constraints
defining
criminal
offenses
case
allegation
statute
unconstitutional
either
interpretation
one
treatise
aptly
summed
ambiguity
analogous
situation
still
difficulty
arises
ambiguity
frequently
exists
concerning
words
phrases
question
modify
instance
knowingly
modify
sentence
blue
sky
law
criminal
statute
punishing
one
knowingly
sells
security
without
permit
securities
commissioner
guilty
must
seller
security
without
permit
know
constitutes
sale
must
also
know
thing
sells
security
must
also
know
permit
sell
security
sells
matter
grammar
statute
ambiguous
clear
far
sentence
word
knowingly
intended
travel
whether
modifies
sells
sells
security
sells
security
without
permit
lafave
scott
criminal
law
see
infra
dissent
repeatedly
claims
holding
today
creates
defense
mistake
law
post
holding
today
creates
mistake
law
defense
statute
making
knowing
receipt
stolen
goods
unlawful
see
post
cases
legal
element
definition
offense
case
statute
legal
element
goods
stolen
case
legal
element
use
transfer
acquisition
etc
manner
authorized
statute
regulations
defense
charge
receipt
stolen
goods
one
know
receipt
illegal
defense
charge
violation
one
know
possessing
food
stamps
manner
unauthorized
statute
regulations
illegal
however
defense
charge
knowing
receipt
stolen
goods
one
know
goods
stolen
defense
charge
violation
one
know
one
possession
unauthorized
see
ali
model
penal
code
comment
tent
draft
freed
supra
brennan
concurring
judgment
cf
morissette
holding
defense
charge
knowingly
converting
federal
property
one
know
one
conversion
committee
report
house
representatives
noted
provision
essentially
current
form
first
enacted
provision
makes
clear
participants
shall
charged
regular
price
prevailing
retail
store
purchase
food
stamps
see
also
department
agriculture
regulations
permit
state
agencies
administering
food
stamp
program
mail
coupons
directly
program
participants
regulations
provide
state
agency
may
issue
coupon
allotments
mail
cfr
statute
provides
full
whoever
presents
causes
presented
coupons
payment
redemption
value
knowing
received
transferred
used
manner
violation
provisions
chapter
regulations
issued
pursuant
chapter
shall
guilty
felony
upon
first
conviction
thereof
shall
fined
imprisoned
five
years
upon
second
subsequent
conviction
thereof
shall
imprisoned
less
one
year
five
years
may
also
fined
coupons
value
less
shall
guilty
misdemeanor
upon
first
conviction
thereof
shall
fined
imprisoned
one
year
upon
second
subsequent
conviction
thereof
shall
imprisoned
one
year
may
also
fined
addition
penalties
person
convicted
felony
misdemeanor
violation
subsection
may
suspended
participation
food
stamp
program
additional
period
eighteen
months
consecutive
period
suspension
mandated
section
title
notwithstanding
absence
explicit
discussion
issue
legislative
history
government
argues
certain
statements
committee
reports
support
position
statute
originally
enacted
part
food
stamp
act
pub
stat
committee
report
accompanying
bill
house
representatives
described
sections
together
section
makes
violation
federal
law
knowingly
use
transfer
acquire
possess
coupons
manner
authorized
act
present
cause
presented
coupons
redemption
knowing
received
transferred
used
manner
violation
provisions
act
see
also
cong
government
believes
description
sections
single
sentence
emphasizes
difference
meaning
fail
see
sentence
merely
parrots
terms
statute
offers
enlightenment
terms
mean
government
similarly
points
legislative
history
act
substantially
revised
previous
food
stamp
program
house
report
explained
ny
unauthorized
use
transfer
acquisition
alteration
possession
food
stamps
individual
may
prosecuted
provisions
report
continued
penalties
prescribed
whoever
presents
causes
presented
food
stamps
payment
redemption
knowing
received
transferred
used
manner
violating
provisions
act
regulations
implementing
act
ibid
presumably
relying
omission
word
knowingly
description
government
argues
language
indicates
difference
sections
plainly
visible
congress
congress
fully
aware
scope
former
provision
brief
believe
omission
word
knowingly
evidence
congress
devoted
attention
issue
today
likely
committee
unaware
problem
simply
realize
need
discuss
mental
element
needed
conviction
moreover
omission
word
knowingly
description
indicate
anything
intent
dispense
requirement
knowledge
intent
odds
language
statute
interpretation
urged
even
government
today
omission
word
knowingly
thus
provides
support
argument
congress
intended
require
knowledge
illegality
prosecution
statute
provides
whoever
matter
within
jurisdiction
department
agency
knowingly
willfully
falsifies
conceals
covers
trick
scheme
device
material
fact
makes
false
fictitious
fraudulent
statements
representations
makes
uses
false
writing
document
knowing
contain
false
fictitious
fraudulent
statement
entry
shall
fined
imprisoned
five
years
fact
parties
yermian
agreed
government
prove
defendant
knowingly
willfully
made
false
statement
course
indicate
parties
agreed
mental
state
applicable
elements
offense
see
post
white
dissenting
mean
yermian
unlike
case
parties
agreed
mind
required
respect
least
one
element
crime
although
agree
petitioner
concerning
interpretation
statute
express
opinion
specific
intent
instruction
tendered
see
supra
instruction
criticized
general
potentially
misleading
see
arambasich
useful
instruction
might
relate
specifically
mental
state
required
eschew
use
difficult
legal
concepts
like
specific
intent
general
intent
case
instance
government
introduced
evidence
petitioner
bought
food
stamps
substantial
discount
face
value
conducted
part
transaction
back
room
restaurant
avoid
presence
patrons
moreover
government
asserts
food
stamps
stamped
nontransferable
brief
jury
inferred
evidence
petitioner
knew
acquisition
possession
stamps
unauthorized
justice
white
chief
justice
joins
dissenting
forsaking
reliance
either
language
history
majority
bases
result
absence
explicit
rejection
general
principle
criminal
liability
requires
actus
reus
mens
rea
view
result
fact
supported
statute
language
history
majority
ignored
general
principles
criminal
liability
views
statutory
problem
far
sentence
term
knowingly
travels
see
ante
accepting
moment
knowingly
extend
manner
language
today
holding
correct
position
take
issue
doubt
gets
far
manner
language
separated
litany
verbs
knowingly
directly
connected
intervening
nouns
considered
identically
phrased
statute
last
term
yermian
predecessor
statute
issue
case
provided
hoever
shall
knowingly
willfully
make
false
fraudulent
statements
representations
matter
within
jurisdiction
department
agency
shall
fined
quoting
act
june
ch
stat
found
natural
reading
statute
knowingly
willfully
applied
making
false
fraudulent
statements
fact
jurisdiction
token
natural
reading
knowingly
modifies
verbs
attached
event
think
premise
approach
mistaken
even
accepting
knowingly
extend
sentence
least
read
statute
mean
says
rather
requires
defendant
aware
relevant
aspects
conduct
requirement
defendant
know
acting
particular
manner
coupled
fact
manner
forbidden
establish
defense
ignorance
law
creates
defense
ignorance
mistake
fact
knowingly
something
unauthorized
law
something
knowing
unauthorized
law
point
demonstrated
hypothetical
statute
referred
majority
punishes
one
knowingly
sells
security
without
permit
see
ante
even
knowingly
reach
without
permit
think
defendant
knew
permit
though
permit
required
convicted
section
identical
statute
except
instead
detailing
various
legal
requirements
incorporates
proscribing
use
coupons
manner
authorized
law
shorthand
approach
drafting
transform
knowledge
illegality
element
crime
written
substantively
different
broken
collection
specific
provisions
making
crimes
particular
improper
uses
example
food
stamps
used
purchase
tobacco
cfr
statute
might
said
inter
alia
anyone
knowingly
uses
coupons
purchase
cigarettes
commits
crime
plausible
reading
defendant
acquitted
know
cigarettes
eligible
food
fact
exactly
say
write
longhand
opinion
provides
another
illustration
general
point
someone
used
food
stamps
purchase
groceries
inflated
prices
without
realizing
agree
person
may
convicted
reason
given
majority
purchaser
knowingly
use
stamps
proscribed
manner
unaware
circumstances
transaction
made
illegal
majority
part
company
result
well
rationale
purchaser
knew
charged
higher
normal
prices
overcharging
prohibited
case
aware
nature
actions
therefore
purchase
knowing
hold
mental
state
satisfies
statute
holding
understand
person
convicted
know
conduct
illegal
much
made
comparison
government
like
see
argues
express
requirement
knowing
illegality
subsection
supports
inference
absence
provision
subsection
intentional
disagree
majority
refutation
argument
view
discussion
beside
point
government
premise
seems
mistaken
subsection
impose
requirement
knowing
illegality
provision
much
like
statutes
forbid
receipt
sale
stolen
goods
see
statutes
generally
require
knowledge
goods
stolen
requires
knowledge
past
impropriety
statutes
require
defendant
know
receipt
illegal
similarly
plainly
require
defendant
know
illegal
present
coupons
improperly
used
past
inconceivable
someone
presenting
coupons
like
someone
buying
stolen
goods
think
conduct
aboveboard
despite
preceding
illegality
belief
however
sincere
defense
short
require
defendant
know
conduct
prosecuted
illegal
create
defense
therefore
draw
government
suggested
inference
two
provisions
nonetheless
fruitfully
compared
matters
difference
similarity
neither
contains
indication
knowledge
law
defining
offense
element
offense
see
ali
model
penal
code
comment
tent
draft
requirement
knowing
illegality
read
either
provision
agree
government
congress
wants
include
requirement
statute
knows
even
though
consider
subsection
example
provisions
code
explicitly
include
requirement
familiarity
law
defining
offense
indeed
places
majority
analysis
entirely
superfluous
see
also
model
penal
code
supra
congress
easily
included
similar
provision
cf
turkette
finally
lower
reading
statute
consistent
legislative
history
majority
points
history
provides
little
go
significantly
however
brief
discussions
provision
relevant
congressional
reports
mention
requirement
knowing
illegality
contrary
food
stamp
act
rewritten
house
report
noted
ny
unauthorized
use
transfer
acquisition
alteration
possession
food
stamps
may
prosecuted
emphasis
added
ii
broad
principles
opinion
easy
live
case
application
reasoning
might
always
benign
example
little
different
basic
federal
prohibition
manufacture
distribution
controlled
substances
title
provides
except
authorized
subchapter
shall
unlawful
person
knowingly
intentionally
manufacture
distribute
dispense
possess
intent
manufacture
distribute
dispense
controlled
substance
provisions
might
distinguished
different
placements
except
authorized
manner
authorized
clauses
sentences
see
yermian
however
nothing
majority
opinion
indicates
difference
relevant
indeed
logic
opinion
require
knowledge
illegality
conviction
statute
making
crime
something
manner
authorized
law
unlawfully
suspect
case
arises
future
result
unacceptable
manage
distinguish
today
decision
interested
see
iii
relying
background
assumption
criminal
law
mens
rea
required
ante
ignores
equally
well
founded
assumption
ignorance
law
excuse
conventional
position
knowledge
existence
meaning
application
law
determining
elements
offense
element
offense
model
penal
code
supra
prior
cases
indicate
statutory
requirement
knowing
violation
supersede
principle
example
statute
issue
international
minerals
chemical
interstate
commerce
commission
authorized
promulgate
regulations
regarding
transportation
corrosive
liquids
crime
knowingly
violat
regulation
viewing
word
regulations
shorthand
designation
specific
acts
omissions
violate
act
adhered
traditional
rule
ignorance
law
defense
violation
knowing
defendant
know
transporting
corrosive
liquids
example
merely
water
requirement
aware
violating
particular
regulation
similarly
case
phrase
manner
authorized
statute
regulations
shorthand
incorporation
variety
legal
requirements
convicted
defendant
must
aware
illegal
boyce
motor
lines
considered
statute
punished
anyone
knowingly
violates
regulation
requiring
trucks
transporting
dangerous
items
avoid
congested
areas
possible
rejecting
vagueness
challenge
read
knowingly
mean
driver
aware
regulation
see
jackson
dissenting
know
safer
alternative
route
available
likewise
construing
punishes
hoever
knowingly
uses
mails
mailing
anything
declared
section
section
title
nonmailable
held
defendant
need
known
materials
nonmailable
hamling
require
proof
defendant
knowledge
legal
status
materials
permit
defendant
avoid
prosecution
simply
claiming
brushed
law
required
statute
accord
rosen
see
also
freed
brennan
concurring
judgment
cases
statutory
language
lent
approach
adopted
today
anything
readily
read
like
statutes
require
awareness
relevant
aspects
one
conduct
rendering
illegal
fact
illegality
reading
abandon
background
assumption
mens
rea
creating
offense
consistent
equally
important
background
assumption
ignorance
law
defense
iv
wholly
agree
contention
injury
amount
crime
inflicted
intention
provincial
transient
notion
morissette
ante
holding
inconsistent
longstanding
important
principle
petitioner
conduct
intentional
jury
found
petitioner
realized
aware
nature
conduct
act
ignorance
mistake
accident
app
trial
instructions
whether
knew
regulation
violated
beside
point
majority
efforts
distinguish
yermian
unavailing
first
points
statute
issue
prosecution
establish
mens
rea
show
knowing
falsehood
ante
however
majority
points
elsewhere
ante
different
mental
apply
different
elements
offense
fact
yermian
mens
rea
proved
first
element
irrelevant
holding
regard
second
reason
read
statute
differently
second
majority
language
yermian
unambiguous
ante
since
identical
language
issue
case
less
finally
majority
notes
yermian
decide
whether
prosecution
might
prove
defendant
known
statements
within
agency
jurisdiction
however
passing
statement
irrelevant
interpretation
statute
language
undertake
agency
interpretation
statute
evidenced
regulations
clear
person
fact
violating
statute
regulation
referred
majority
cfr
coupons
may
used
household
purchase
eligible
food
household
prevailing
price
requirement
mentioned
section
applies
participating
stores
coupons
shall
accepted
eligible
foods
prices
terms
conditions
applicable
cash
purchases
foods
store
purposes
illustration
however
accept
overcharging
also
overcharged
violates
statute
appropriate
prosecutorial
target
situation
course
seller
rather
purchaser
doubt
every
prosecutor
country
agree
discussion
hypothetical
wholly
academic
similar
reasons
unmoved
specter
criminal
liability
someone
mistakenly
mailed
food
stamps
throws
see
ante
think
hypothetical
offers
much
guide
congressional
intent
proceed
assumption
congress
mind
situation
bizarre
mutation
arguments
presume
wildly
unreasonable
conduct
government
officials
nature
unconvincing
reliance
likely
harm
good
dotterweich
rule
including
adopted
today
immune
contrived
defects
asserts
distinction
meaningless
anyone
violated
subsection
necessarily
violated
subsection
well
present
ing
caus
ing
presented
coupons
payment
redemption
unauthorized
manner
ante
however
subsection
forbids
presenting
coupons
knowing
improperly
used
acquired
past
manner
acquisition
presentation
offender
may
perfectly
proper
point
coupons
sense
tainted
prior
transaction
thus
clerk
accepts
stamps
ineligible
items
thereby
violating
employer
collects
stamps
presents
redemption
normal
course
business
seem
latter
violated
done
nothing
manner
authorized
law
violated
subsection
knew
clerk
wrongdoing
may
merely
violating
subsection
grocer
also
violates
subsection
absent
violation
subsection
see
grocer
violate
subsection
case
similarly
valid
defense
charge
theft
defendant
thought
property
legally
belonged
even
belief
incorrect
ignorance
law
excuse
rather
legal
element
involved
simply
aspect
attendant
circumstances
respect
knowledge
required
culpability
law
involved
law
defining
offense
legal
rule
characterizes
attendant
circumstances
material
offense
ali
model
penal
code
comment
tent
draft
accord
freed
brennan
concurring
judgment
cf
morissette
distinguishes
public
welfare
offense
cases
involving
inherently
dangerous
articles
commerce
whose
users
assumed
subject
regulation
ante
see
freed
brennan
concurring
judgment
apart
fact
reasonable
person
also
assume
food
stamps
heavily
regulated
subject
sale
exchange
distinction
related
actual
holdings
cases
opinion
boyce
concurrence
freed
discuss
consideration
references
dangerousness
goods
international
minerals
directed
possible
due
process
challenges
convictions
without
notice
criminality
today
majority
acknowledges
ante
constitutional
defect
holding
issue
one
congressional
intent
statute
defendant
convicted
even
though
unaware
circumstances
conduct
made
illegal
take
example
statute
recently
regulation
forbidding
hunting
birds
baited
field
read
scienter
requirement
case
defense
prove
one
know
field
baited
case
someone
hunting
field
guilty
even
know
known
baited
see
catlett
post
white
dissenting
denial
certiorari
argue
latter
approach
taken
statute
statutory
language
allow