UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
REGINALD LORENZA MATHEWS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that conviction under 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a) does not require proof that the defendant knew he was a convicted felon.
Reginald Lorenza Mathews was convicted of two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a). He appealed, arguing the jury charge erroneously allowed c…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Lorenza Mathews appeals from a judgment of conviction of two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a) [possession of a firearm, in or affecting commerce, by a convicted felon]. We affirm.
His sole contention, that the district court’s charge to the jury erroneously permitted his conviction without proof that he knew he was a convicted felon at the time of the offense, is without merit. Mathews’ argument is essentially that his ignorance of the law, i. e., of the statutory classification rendering his pri-or conviction a felony within the meaning of § 1202(a), precludes his conviction here. But the short answer is provided by the time-honored maxim: ignorantia legis neminem excusat. Such was the rationale in United States v. Crow, 439 F. 2d 1193 (9th Cir. 1971), vacated on other grounds, 404 U.S. 1009, 92 S.Ct. 687, 30 L.Ed.2d 657 (1972). There we held that § 1202(a) does not require proof of knowledge or intent, “except as the word ‘possession’ imports a knowing possession.” 439 F. 2d at 1195. We seize this opportunity to reaffirm that conclusion.1
We have reviewed the district court’s instructions as to the § 1202(a) counts and conclude they were wholly proper— both consistent with the reasoning underlying Crow and in accordance with the plain language of the statute.
Affirmed.
. We note that other circuits have followed the reasoning of Crow on the specific intent issue. See United States v. Horton, 503 F. 2d 810, 813 (7th Cir. 1974); United States v. Mostad, 485 F. 2d 199, 200 (8th Cir. 1973); United States v. Thomas, 484 F. 2d 909, 914-915 (6th Cir. 1973); United States v. Lupino, 480 F. 2d 720, 724 (8th Cir. 1973); United States v. Wiley, 478 F. 2d 415, 417-418 (8th Cir. 1973); United States v. Smith, 477 F. 2d 399, 401 (8th Cir. 1973).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Locke, 542 F.2d 800 (9th Cir. 1976)
-
United States v. McINTYRE, 582 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1978)
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Hayden Thopless Crow, 439 F.2d 1193 (9th Cir. 1971)
- United States v. Thomas, 484 F.2d 909 (6th Cir. 1973)
- United States v. Mostad, 485 F.2d 199 (8th Cir. 1973)
- Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., Inc. v. Chagois, 404 U.S. 1009 (U.S. 1972)
- Crow v. United States, 404 U.S. 1009 (U.S. 1972)
- United States v. Rocco Salvatore Lupino, 480 F.2d 720 (8th Cir. 1973)
- United States v. Earthia B. Wiley, 478 F.2d 415 (8th Cir. 1973)
- United States v. Horton, 503 F.2d 810 (7th Cir. 1974)
- United States v. Smith, 477 F.2d 399 (8th Cir. 1973)