FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information
VOLUME 5 - CHAPTER 47
Go to Volume
5
Table of Contents
- Go to Chapter
47 Table of Contents
47.2 Subjective Knowledge/Actual Knowledge
47.2.1 Subjective/Actual Knowledge Defined
47.2.2 Subjective Knowledge As Mental State That May Be Negated By Mental Impairment, Intoxication, Etc.
47.2.3 State of Mind: Knowledge vs. Intent
FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information
VOLUME 5 - CHAPTER 47
47.2.1 Subjective/Actual Knowledge Defined
RATIONALE: Subjective knowledge requires actual awareness. Absent statutory language to the contrary, or application of the deliberate ignorance doctrine (see FORECITE National™ 47.4 [Deliberate Ignorance/Willful Blindness]), knowledge which is an element of the offense requires actual, subjective knowledge. Therefore, special instruction may be appropriate to assure the jury understands this requirement.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: While knowledge may be inferred from the circumstances, the existence of such circumstances is not a substitute for actual knowledge. (See U.S. v. MacDonald & Watson Waste Oil Co. (1st Cir. 1991) 933 F2d 35, 51; People v. Parga (CO 1998) 964 P2d 571, 573 [statute required actual knowledge of habitual offender status]; State v. Lewis (KS 1998) 953 P2d 1016, 1026 [same]; see also LaFave & Scott, Substantive Criminal Law (West, 1986) §3.4(c) (2d ed. 1986).)
FEDERALIZATION: To federalize this request, click here. [Constitutional Macro 3.6; 4.1].
RELATED FEDERAL MODEL INSTRUCTIONS:
See generally FORECITE National™ 47.1.2 [Knowledge: Federal Circuit Model Instructions And Notes].
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
A person who is not actually aware of a fact does not act with knowledge of that fact even though a reasonable person in the same situation as defendant would likely have been aware of that fact. Knowledge is based on a person's actual subjective awareness, not what he or she ought to have been aware of.
[See generally LaFave & Scott, Substantive Criminal Law (West, 1986) §3.4(c) (2d ed. 1986); U.S. v. MacDonald & Watson Waste Oil Co. (1st Cir. 1991) 933 F2d 35, 51; see also Hubbard, JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR CRIMINAL CASES IN SOUTH CAROLINA: DEFENDANTS REQUESTED INSTRUCTIONS VII(A) inst. 2.1 [Knowledge Of A Fact] p. 331 (South Carolina CLE, 1994).]
FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information
VOLUME 5 - CHAPTER 47
47.2.2 Subjective Knowledge As Mental State That May Be Negated By Mental Impairment, Intoxication, Etc.
See FORECITE National™ 256.6.1.15 [Intoxication Or Mental Impairment: Negation Of Knowledge Element].
FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information
VOLUME 5 - CHAPTER 47
47.2.3 State Of Mind: Knowledge vs. Intent
PRACTICE NOTE: "The basic distinction between a person who acts purposely (intentionally) and one who acts knowingly is that the former actor desires to engage in given conduct (which happens to amount to a crime) or desires by his conduct to cause a prohibited harmful result, while the latter actor is merely aware that he is engaging in given conduct (which happens to amount to a crime) or is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause a prohibited harmful result." (State v. Pinero (HI 1989) 778 P2d 704, 713 fn 7.)
RELATED FEDERAL MODEL INSTRUCTIONS:
See generally FORECITE National™ 47.1.2 [Knowledge: Federal Circuit Model Instructions And Notes].