RULE – Required element of knowledge of illegal use and intent to further that use

royal courts of justice

·        1- Knowledge is a question of fact
·        2- Intent: Requires either direct evidence or circumstantial evidence
·        3- Intent inferred from knowledge – intent to participate in the crime of which he has knowledge may be inferred from the existence of his special interest
o       Purveyor of legal goods for illegal use has acquired a stake in the venture
o       When no legitimate use of the goods or services exist (compare with Lauria)
o       When the volume of business is grossly disproportionate to nay legitimate demand, or when sales for illegal use amount to a higher proportion of the seller’s total business
·        4- Knowledge alone as intent – A Δ that furnishes a good or service that knows will be used to commit a serious crime may be deemed from that knowledge alone to have intended to produce that result
§        Supplier of Goods With Knowledge RULE – The intent of a supplier who knows of the criminal use to which his supplies are put to use may found as a conspirator if it is established by (1) direct evidence that he intends to participate or (2) through an inference that he intends to participate based on (a) his special interest in the activity or (b) the aggravated nature of the crime
·        The more serious the crime, the easier it is to draw an inference
§        Knowledge alone is not a sufficient mens rea for conspiracy.  Mens rea is intent => intent to agree that the target crime is carried out
·        Need to look for an informed and interested cooperation, stimulation, or instigation. Also looks for a stake in the venture.
§        Powell Corrupt Motive => If you have people who agree to commit a crime, we’re not going to give the benefit of the nuances of technicality that would otherwise help them
o       Actus Reus – the agreement itself under the definition of conspiracy as an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime plus an overt act
§        Standard
·        Not necessary for the government to prove an express agreement between alleged conspirators to go forth with a prosecution
·        Proof must be circumstantial and thus, inferential to an extent varying with the conditions under which the crime may be consummated
·        The Δ’s knowledge of all details or phases of a conspiracy is not required.  It is enough that he knows the essential details
·        All participants of the conspiracy need not know each other; all that is necessary is that each know that it has a scope and that for its success, it requires an organization wider than may be disclosed
·        Δ cannot escape criminal liability on grounds that he did not join the conspiracy until well after its inception or because he played a minor role in the crime
§        Overt Act Requirement
·        Liability Without and Overt Act
o       Conspiracy consists not merely the intention of two or more people, but in the agreement of two or more people to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means

No comments