1

Crim. Law Notes & Cases

When legislatures pass a new law or modify one it must provide a mens rea (mental aspect)
Common law v. Model Penal Code
Theories of Punishment (pp. 30-48)
I. In general - Kent Greenwalt - Punishment
a. Dominant approach to justification are retributive and utilitarian
i. Retributive: punishment is justified b/c people deserve it
ii. Utilitarian: justification lies in the useful purposes that punishment
serves
b. Greenwalts 6 characteristics of punishment:
i. it is performed by, and directed at , agents who are responsible in
some sense. God and humans can punish; hurricanes cannot. People,
but not faulty television sets, are fit subjects of punishment
ii. involves designedly harmful or unpleasant consequences
iii. the unpleasant consequences usually are preceded by a judgment of
condemnation; the subject of punishment is explicitly blamed for
committing a wrong
iv. it is imposed by one who has authority to do so
v. imposed for a breach of some established rule of behavior
vi. imposed on an actual or supposed violator of the rule of behavior
II. Utilitarian Justifications Jeremy Bentham an introduction to the principles of
morals and legislation
a. Pleasure and pain will be greater or less to someone according to the 4
circumstances:
i. Intensity
ii. Duration
iii. Certainty or uncertainty
iv. Propinquity or remoteness
b. Punishment should not be inflicted in the following cases:
i. Where it is groundless: where there is no mischief for it to prevent
ii. Where it must be inefficacious: where it cannot act so as to prevent
mischief
iii. Where it is unprofitable or too expensive: where the mischief it would
produce would be greater than what it prevented
iv. Where it is needless: where the mischief may be prevented, or cease
of itself, w/o it that is at a cheaper rate
c. Most important catalogs of beneficial consequences that utilitarians thought
can be realized by punishment:
i. General deterrence
ii. Individual deterrence
iii. Incapacitation and other forms of risk management
iv. Reform
III. Retributive Justifications Micheal S. Moore the moral worth of retribution
a. Lex talionis: an eye for an eye
2
b. Distinct aspect of retributivism: the moral desert of an offender is a
sufficient reason to punish him
c. Negative retribution: guilt is a necessary condition of punishment
d. Positive retribution: guilt is both a necessary and sufficient condition for
punishment
e. Protective retribution: you made a free choice, now you must live with the
consequences
f. Assaultive retribution: treat criminals like noxious insects on the ground
under the heel of society
g. Jeffrie G. Murphy & Jean Hampton Forgiveness & Mercy
i. Retributive punishment is the defeat of the wrongdoer at the hands of
the victims
ii. Aims to annul or counter the appearance of the wrongdoers
superiority and thus affirm the victims real value
City of Chicago v. Morales

Issue: whether the Gang Congressional Ordinance violates the Due Process Clause of the
14
th
amendment to the federal constitution?
NO
A law fails to meet the requirements of due process if it is so vague and standardless
that it leaves the public uncertain as to the conduct it prohibits
o This ordinances definition of loitering is too vague, no conduct is specified
at all
o The ordinance allows officers to issue an order w/o first inquiring their
purpose
Citys principal response to concerns about adequate notice:
I. Is that loiterers are not subject to sanction until after they have failed to comply w/
an officers order to disperse
a. Court finds this unpersuasive for 2 reasons:
i. Purpose of fair notice requirement is so that ordinary citizens can
conform his conduct to the law
ii. Terms of the dispersal order compound the inadequacy of the notice
afforded by the ordinance

4 requirements for violating the ordinance
I. Officer must reasonably believe that at least 1 of the 2 or more persons present in a
public place is a criminal street gang member
II. Person must be loitering, defined by the ordinance as remaining in any one place
with no apparent purpose
III. Officer must then order all of the persons to disperse and remove themselves form
the area
IV. Person must obey the officers order
2 reasons why criminal laws need to be thorough not vague:
I. May fail to provide the kind of notice that will enable ordinary people to understand
what conduct is prohibited
3
II. May authorize and even encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement
The Queen v. Dudley & Stephens

Special verdict:
The bad part in this case is Parker was in no way a threat, to think that the use of
necessity as a defense, if this case went that way, wouldnt be a cloak for atrocious
crimes (but, self defense does so and is recognized as a defense)
Rule: it is alright to do something that is criminal as long as it seeks to avoid a
greater harm
Inaction can be worse than action in a crime (Brooks was worse)
Self defense is a defense for murder when unlawful force is being brought
Ask question similar to burn a house of 10 people or 300?
Chapter 4: Actus Reus (pp. 127)
Introductory Comment: Defining Actus Reus
I. In general a contains 2 components
a. Actus reus: physical or external part of the crime- think of it as coduct
b. Mens rea: mental or internal ingredient
II. (Esers Definition) Actus Reus is to be interpreted as the comprehensive notion of
act, harm, and its connecting link, causation.
a. w/ actus expressing the voluntary physical movement in the sense of
conduct
b. w/ reus expressing the fact that this conduct results in a certain proscribed
harm
III. 2 ways of looking at actus reus:
a. conduct: what act is prescribed
b. act: doing the act
A. Voluntary Act
2.01 Requirement of Voluntary Act; Omission as Basis of Liability; Possession as
an Act.
(1) A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct which
includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically
capable.
(2) The following are not voluntary acts within the meaning of this Section:
(a) a reflex or convulsion;
(b) a bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep;
(c) conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion;
(d) a bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of
the actor, either conscious or habitual.
(3) Liability for the commission of an offense may not be based on an omission
unaccompanied by action unless:
(a) the omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense; or
(b) a duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law.
4
(4) Possession is an act, within the meaning of this Section, if the possessor
knowingly procured or received the thing possessed or was aware of his control
thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate his possession.
Martin v. State (pp. 128-130)

-provides that actus reus requires a voluntary act, prevents punishment of thoughts
Facts:
a man was drunk and arrested at his house by officers, the officers took him onto the
highway
upon him being on the highway he was convicted of being drunk on a public
highway
man appeals
under the terms of the statute, it is presupposed that appearance be voluntary, not
an actual element of the statute, is arguing that he didnt appear
since he was involuntarily and forcibly carried onto the highway, is contrary to the
principle of the statute
Disposition: court reversed and rendered the case
N/Q:
2. the often stated rule is that criminal law doesnt punish thoughts (or pre-cogs), but has
not always been true
the act requirement of crimes objectives:
o assure that evil intent of the man branded a criminal has been expressed in a
manner signifying harm to society
o that there is no longer any substantial likelihood that he will be deterred by
the threat of sanction
o that there has been an identifiable occurrence so that multiple prosecution
and punishment may be minimized
o can only deter after the crime
what about if ones thoughts could be known or if one pronounced a thought as
such?
o If proof beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient to justify punishment after
a crime has occurred, why isnt it enough to justify it for pre-crime?
4. whats the diference b/t voluntary and involuntary?
(1) X raised his arm
(2) Xs arm went up
o (1) implies (2), but (2) does not imply (1)
o (1) & (2) are not equivalent statements
State v. Utter (pp. 130- 135)

: State
: Claude Gilbert Utter
Facts:
and his son were living together

Remainder voluntary act will of acting
5
son was seen going into s apartment and shortly after saying dad dont , then
shortly after seen stumbling the hallway, then collapsed having been stabbed. Son
said right before he died dad stabbed me
had served in the military and was honorably discharged
testified that on that day he had drank in the morning
o had bought 2 bottles of wine and drank one of them except for 2 drinks of it
o around lunch time went to get 2 qts of whiskey and 4 qts of wine
o he sat around with a friend drinking and that the last thing he remembers
until waking up in jail after his sons death
Procedural History:
was charged with murder in the 2
nd
degree
was convicted by a jury of manslaughter
o introduced evidence on conditioned response- an act or pattern of activity
occurring so rapidly, so uniformly as to be automatic to certain stimuli
he stated that his jungle warfare training from WWII he had in the
50s reacted violently on two occasions when approached from the
rear
o trial court ruled it wasnt a defense in Washington, and told jury to disregard
stated that he was trying to present a defense of irresistible impulse
a theory of criminal insanity (isnt recognized in this state) but
saw it as one for mental incapacity
appeals the conviction
Issue: whether it was error of the trial court to instruct the jury to disregard the evidence
on conditional response?
Holding: no, no evidence the son came up behind him
Reasoning:
there is a certain minimal mental element required in order to est the actus reus
element of volition
since he was charged w/ 2
nd
degree murder and charged w/ manslaughter, the actus
reus of both would be homicide
o in order to est. either, the fact of homicide must first be est.
o contends that his evidence was presented for the purpose of determining if
homicide was committed. Argues that it shows no act was committed in
accordance with the definition of homicide
o contends that the acts committed were not mental process but were
learned physical reactions to external stimuli
further states one who is not conscious is incapable of committing a
culpable act
absence of consciousness excludes the possibility of voluntary acts and liability
Washington supreme court held in State v. Strasburg that an involuntary act, as it
has no claim to merit, so neither can it induce any guilt
However the use of alcohol or drugs to induce unconsciousness
does not allow acts to be discarded
Disposition: evidence presented was insufficient to present to the jury, the jury has no
evidence to make such a decision on.
6

N/Q:
3. in states that recognize automatism, the debate is how the evidence is to be presented.
There is a split b/t recognizing automatism and insanity.
4. the term involuntary has many meanings
5. mens rea signifies the state of mind regarding the social harm of the offense
the element of voluntariness applies to the act that caused the social harm
even when an offense does not contain mens rea component, a voluntary act may
still be required for conviction
7. one can come into possession of illegal drugs involuntarily
- if you have a bomb strapped to you and youll only live if you rob a bank, and you do, its
volulntary (duress is irrelevant to the actus reus element)
B. Omissions (Negative Acts)
1. General Principles
People v. Beardsley (pp. 136-141)
Supreme Court of Michigan, 1907
150 Mich. 206, 113 N.W. 1128
-prosecution based on omission must prove duty (this is the only time duty is concerned)
Facts:
Respondent was married and working as a bartender and clerk at the Columbia
hotel
o Lived w/ wife in 2 rooms on the ground floor of a house
Wife left for a trip, he arranged for Ms. Burns to come to his apartments with him
They had met up 2 times before and stayed and drank with each other
On sat. march 18 she came to his place and they began drinking
o Stayed with each other until Monday, except for he had work on sun
They had liquor and beer brought by a young man who worked at the Columbia
Hotel
o On mon young man went to se if anything was needed
o Burns asked for the young man to get her camphor and morphine tablets
o He brought 6 morphine grains
Burns consumed 3-4 grains, respondent called the young man to have him help her
into the basement room that was occupied by Mr. Skoba
Respondent was too intoxicated to help
9-10 pm Skoba called the city marshall and a doctor Burns was dead
Procedural history:
respondent was convicted of manslaughter
sentenced to prison 1 yr<__<5 yr
prosecutor argued that respondent had a duty of care that required him to take
steps to protect her, failure of which constitute an omission
Issue: whether respondent had a legal duty to Burns at the time of her death, and of which
the omission to perform would make him responsible for her death?
Holding: no
Reasoning:
7
law recognizes that in certain circumstances omission of a duty owed that results in
death, can be chargeable for manslaughter
o must be a legal duty, not mere moral obligation
o omission to perform must be immediate or direct cause of death
must consider Burns was:
o older than 30
o use to drinking and being intoxicated
o had been with this guy before & no evidence showed duress, fraud, or deceit
the fact that she was in his house doesnt imply the prosecutors duty is owed that is
not consistent with any law
Disposition: conviction set aside and respondent is discharged
- seclusion of helpless= a possibility
- assumption of care= not really met in this case
N/Q:
2. 5 situations where failure to act may constitute a breach of a legal duty:
I. statute imposes a duty- Ex: state stating a teacher must inform state of any signs of
possible child abuse
II. status relationship- ex: parent child
III. contractual duty- ex: personal care giver, lifeguard
IV. one voluntarily assumes care of another as to render aid from others- when people
think your going to help
V. person creates a risk of harm to another- knock toddler in pool and watch them
drown (NOTE 5 on pg 141)
2. Distinguishing Acts from Omissions
Barber v. Superior Court (pp. 142-147)

Facts:
Deceased Herbert underwent surgery for closure of an ileostomy
Petitioner Nejdl M.D. was his surgeon
Petitioner Barber M.D. was his attending internist
After a successful surgery, Herbert suffered cardio-respiratory arrest, revived and
placed on life support
Comatose state, not likely to recover, severe brain damage, likely to be permanent
Petitioners informed Herberts family
o Family drafted a written request to have all machines taken off that are
sustaining life
o 2 days later removed the hydration and nourishment tubes
Issue: whether the evidence was sufficient to support the determination that the
petitioners should not be held to answer to charges of murder and conspiracy to commit
murder?
Holding: NO
Reasoning:
murder: unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought Penal Code
187
8
Malice: can be express or implied: Penal Code 188
o Express: an intent unlawfully to take any life
o Implied: circumstances show an abandoned and malignant heart
Unlawful: defining criminal homicide form those which society deems justifiable
Historically death is defined as cessation of the heart and respiratory function
Health and Safety Code 7180(a)(2) provides, in terms of irreversible cessation of
all brain function
@ the time petitioners terminated further treatment, Herbert was not dead by
either statutory or historical understandings
o considered an omission of further treatment
did the petitioners have a duty to continue to provide life sustaining treatment?
o No criminal liability for failure to act unless there is a legal duty to act
o Life sustaining treatment isnt like traditional treatment b/c is isnt used to
cure but only sustain biological functions
o Once treatment is proven to be ineffective, no duty is due + qualified medical
personnels opinion
Wife is the proper person to make the call
Disposition: petitioners omission to continue treatment under the circumstances was not
unlawful failure to perform a legal duty
C. Social Harm
I. Pp. 148 Insert
II. What result the law requires
a. E.g. Knowingly of providing obscene literature to minors (KPOLM)
III. 2 types of offenses
a. result crimes- law punishes b/c of unwanted outcome (a lot of crimes dont
have result element)
b. conduct crimes- law prohibits specific behavior, required
IV. b/c the result is a crime not just a tort, we can call the outcome social harm
V. intangible harm resulting from every crime
VI. social harm- negation, endangering, or destruction of an individual, group, or state
interest, which is deemed socially valuable
a. the very essence of crime
VII. can have some social harm w/o result
VIII. Actus reus elements of some criminal offenses:
a. conduct (nature of crime)
b. result (result of conduct)
c. Attendant circumstances- a condition that must be present
Chapter 5: Mens Rea
A. Nature of Mens Rea
United States v. Cordoba-Hincapie (pp. 149-151)

Rule of Law: An act does not make the doer of it guilty, unless the mind is guilty; that is,
unless the intent be criminal.
9
Mens rea- a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent
Actus non Rule: an act does not make the doer of it guilty, unless the mind be guilty;
that is, unless the intent be criminal
N/Q:
1. The 2 usages of mens rea
Broadly speaking:
o Means guilty mind, vicious will, immorality of motive or morally culpable
state of mind
o This is the culpability meaning of mens rea
o is guilty if they commit a social harm of the offense w/ any morally
blameworthy state of mind
Narrowly:
o Mental state the must have had w/ regard to the social harm elements set
out in the offenses definition
o This is the elemental meaning of mens rea
Mens Rea ask ONLY 2 Questions:
What does this mens rea word mean?
What does this word apply to?
o Analyze as such:
K P O L M

Regina v. Cunningham (pp. 151-153)

Rule of Law: Malice requires either an actual intention to do the particular kind of harm
that was in fact done or recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not.

Malice comes to mean- if one intended malicious results
Mens rea Q1 case
Wants $, goes to gas meter and takes money
Judge told jury, Malice means wickedly
B. General Issues in Proving Culpability
1. Intent
People v. Conley (pp. 153-159)

Rule of Law: A person, who in committing a battery, intentionally or knowingly causes
great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement commits aggravated battery.
- mens rea Q1+2:
o 1: what intentionally and Knowingly mean
o 2: what these apply to (state thinks: hat to I or K cause bodily harm or
disability
Facts:
200 high school students were at a party
attended w/ several friends, were confronted by another group and decided to
leave to avoid problems
10
was walking with Marty, approached and demanded a beer, they rejected
trying to hit marty but missed and hit in the face with a wine bottle instead
o broken upper and lower jaws, 4 broken bones in-between nose and lower
left cheek, lost 1 tooth, had root canal surgery, obtained a permanent
condition called Mucosal Mouth and partial permanent numbness in one lip
Procedural History:
- when jury is instructed w/ the law presumes or presumes is something that
each party can refute if negative to them
was convicted of aggravated battery based on permanent disability
o Illinois Criminal Code 12-4(a): a person who, in committing a battery,
intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, or permanent disability
or disfigurement commits aggravated battery
contends originally on appeal that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that incurred permanent disability
o b/c there is no testimony of any task that cant be performed any longer
Appellate court: to be disabling it must no longer serves the body in the same
manner as it did before the injury
o Found s sufficient to constitute permanent disability
argues also state failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he intended to
inflict any permanent disability
o state uses 12-4(a) and uses 4-4 (intent) and 4-5 (knowledge)
o intent can be inferred by the circumstances, offenders words, weapon used,
and force of blow, absence of warning
Disposition: the evidence is sufficient to show intent to cause permanent disability beyond
a reasonable doubt
N/Q:
1. Battery:
generally, criminal battery is an unlawful application of force to the person of
another
o requisite mental state is less clear
2. Common law intent:
ordinarily defined to include not only those results that are the conscious object of
the actor (what he wants to occur) but also results that the actor knows are virtually
certain to occur from his conduct, even if he doesnt want them to occur
3. Proving Intent:
your actions reveal your thoughts more than you realize
o an inference
prosecutor is required to prove every element of an offense beyond a reasonable
doubt. The due process clause is violated, therefore, if the element of intent is
presumed and the is required to disprove that he intended the ordinary
consequences of his voluntary acts
4. Transferred intent:
justice is achieved by punishing the for crime of the same seriousness as the one
he tried to commit against his intended victim
11
law speaks in terms of an unlawful intent to kill a person, not the person intended to
be killed
6. Specific intent and general intent
dont have universally accepted definitions
gen: (1)
o when no particular mental state is set out in the definition of the crime and,
therefore, prosecutor need only prove that the social harm of the offense was
performed w/ a morally blameworthy state of mind
Spec: (1)
o An offense which a mental state is expressly set out in the definition of the
crime
Spec: (2)
o Denote an offense that contains in its definition the mens rea element of
intent or perhaps knowledge
Gen: (2)
o Reversed for crimes that permit conviction on the basis of a less culpable
mental state, like recklessness or negligence
Gen: (3)
o Any mental state whether expressed or implied, in its definition of the
offense that relates solely to the conduct and/or result that constitutes the
social harm of the criminal offense
Spec: (3)
o Special mental element which is required above and beyond any mental state
required w/ respect to the actus reus of the crime
o 1 of these 3 types of special mental elements is typically found in the
definition of specific intent crimes:
(1) prove an intention by the actor to commit some future act,
separate from the actus reus of the offense
(2) proof of a special motive or purpose for committing the actus reus
proof of the actors awareness of an attendant circumstance
Lefrancois Gen. v. Spec. Class Explanation:
P
K
R
N

Gen v. Spec. Tests:
Test 1:
- if all the words are below the line Gen. Intent
Test 2:
- If you have even just 1 thats above the line:
- 2A: does the mens rea of this offense require the intention to do an act beyond the
actus reus? (e.g. burglary requires breaking and entering of anothers dwelling at
night w/ intent to commit a felony)
o if it does Spec. Intent (all attempted crimes fall here)
High Cognitive order
Low Cognitive order
Line for Test
12
o If it does not go to 2B
- 2B: does it require special motive or purpose?
o Yes spec Intent
o No 2C
- 2C: is knowledge of some AC required?
o Yes spec intent
o No gen intent
2. The Model Penal Code Approach
P
K
R
N
Only trick in defining mens rea under MPC 2.02 is purpose and knowingly have 2
meanings
Crimes have 3 parts:
o Conduct
o Result
o Attendant Circumstance
MPC 2.02 answers the 2 questions for mens rea
Purpose:
1. defines purposeful conduct or purposeful result
If you want to, thats your goal, meant to
2. act purposefully if aware of AC or believed or hoped it existed

Knowingly:
1. knowingly doing something, when your aware your doing it
2. knowingly if it is practically certain actions will cause the result

Recklessly:
Aware of risk, disregard though
Risk must be substantial and unjustifiable
Fact that you disregarded has to be a gross deviation of conduct from what a law
abiding person would do in the situation

Negligently:
Unaware, shouldve been aware
Almost same as recklessness
Gross deviation from what a reasonable person would do

3 Principles of where mens rea words go:
1. When no culpability is listed, elemet to establish if person acts either purposefully,
knowingly, or recklessly
a. NOT negligently
2. When the prescribed culpability requirement doesnt distinguish among material
elements It will apply to ALL
13
3.
3. Knowledge of Attendant Circumstances (The Willful
Blindness Problem)
State v. Nations (pp. 164-168)

Rule of Law: to knowingly engage in criminal conduct, a defendant must have actual
knowledge of the existence of the attendant circumstances which constitute the crime.
Criminal Code read literally defines knowingly as actual knowledge w/ respect to
AC
o Excluding willful shutting of s eyes cases
MPC expands definition to include even willful blindness
Legislature chose the narrower (Criminal Code), limiting to actual knowledge
Just b/c didnt check the girls ID, doesnt mean she didnt know she wasnt <17
o At best proves did not know or willfully shut her eyes
was only aware of the high probability which isnt actual knowledge
couldnt prove actual knowledge

N/Q:

3. willful blindness:
2 basic requirements:
o must subjectively believe there is a high probability that a fact exists
o must take deliberate actions to avoid learning of that fact

4. Problems in Statutory Interpretation
Flores-Figueroa v. U.S. (pp. 169-174)

Rule of Law: Before an individual may be convicted of the crime of aggravated identity theft
under 18 USC 1028A(a)(1),govt must prove that he knew that the ID he used to commit
predicate crimes belonged to someone else

matter of ordinary English grammar, knowingly naturally reads as to applying to
all the subsequently listed elements of the crime
Govt presents no example of a sentence which would lead the hearer to hear
contrary
reversed


C. Strict Liability Offenses
U.S. v. Cordoba-Hincapie (pp. 174-176)

Rule of Law: Criminal liability is permitted to attach w.o regard to fault in instances in
which actors conduct involves minor violations of public welfare laws.
14
Strict liability- liability for all injuries proximately caused by a partys conducting of certain
inherently dangerous activities w/o regard to negligence or fault

If punishment of the wrongdoer far outweighs regulation of the social order as a
purpose of the law in question, the mens rea probably is not required
Strict liability has been permitted in the criminal law in a # of other instances such
as the crime to statutory rape


Staples v. U.S. (pp. 176-185)

Rule of Law: When construing a statute as dispensing w/ mens rea would require the to
have knowledge only of traditionally lawful conduct, a severe penalty is a further factor
tending to suggest that congress did not intend to eliminate a mens rea requirement.


Garnett v. State (pp. 185-192)

Rule of Law: state statute prohibiting sexual intercourse w/ underage persons makes no
reference to the actors knowledge, belief, or other state of mind.


D. Mistake and Mens Rea
1. Mistake of Fact
People v. Navaro (pp. 193-197)

Rule of Law: if one takes personal property w/ the good faith belief that the property has
been abandoned or discarded by the true owner, he is not guilty of theft, even where such
good-faith belief is unreasonable.


2. Mistake (or Ignorance) of Law
People v. Marrero (pp. 197-207)
Rule of Law: if a person has a good faith belief that he has a right to a certain property, he
is not guilty of larceny, even if the belief is unreasonable.
I. Uses good faith as a defense to specific intent crime
II. In order to be convicted of larceny must take anothers property w/ intent to
permanently deprive him of the property
III. If one truly believes he has right to property, he cannot possibly intend to steal the
property
IV. As long as the belief is in good faith, reasonableness of belief doesnt matter (b/c you
cannot negligently steal)
V. HELD: not guilty
15





















Cheek v. United States (pp. 207-212)
Rule of Law: a good faith misunderstanding of the law or a good faith belief that one is not
violating the law does not have to be reasonable to negate the element of willfulness.
I. Statutes of tax law can make it difficult for average citizen to know extenet of his
duties under tax law
II. Specific intent to violate the law is an element of ceratin federal criminal offenses
III. Term willfully carved out an exception to GR that mistake of law is not a defense