184
OCTOBER TERM, 1997
Syllabus
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit
No. 96-8422. Argued March 31, 1998—Decided June 15, 1998
The Firearms Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) added 18 U. S. C. § 924(a)
(1)(D) to the Criminal Code to prohibit anyone from "willfully" violating, inter alia, § 922(a)(1)(A), which forbids dealing in firearms without a federal license. The evidence at petitioner's unlicensed dealing trial was adequate to prove that he was dealing in firearms and that he knew his conduct was unlawful, but there was no evidence that he was aware of the federal licensing requirement. The trial judge refused to instruct the jury that he could be convicted only if he knew of the federal licensing requirement, instructing, instead, that a person acts "willfully" if he acts with the bad purpose to disobey or disregard the law, but that he need not be aware of the specific law that his conduct may be violating. The jury found petitioner guilty. The Second Circuit affirmed, concluding that the instructions were proper and that the Government had elicited "ample proof" that petitioner had acted willfully.
Held: The term "willfully" in § 924(a)(1)(D) requires proof only that the defendant knew his conduct was unlawful, not that he also knew of the federal licensing requirement. Pp. 191-200.
(a) When used in the criminal context, a "willful" act is generally one undertaken with a "bad purpose." See, e. g., Heikkinen v. United States, 355 U. S. 273, 279. In other words, to establish a "willful" violation of a statute, the Government must prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful. Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U. S. 135, 137. The Court rejects petitioner's argument that, for two principal reasons, a more particularized showing is required here. His first contention—that the "knowingly" requirement in §§ 924(a)(1)(A)-(C) for three categories of acts made unlawful by § 922 demonstrates that the Government must prove knowledge of the law—is not persuasive because "knowingly" refers to knowledge of the facts constituting the offense, as distinguished from knowledge of the law, see, e. g., United States v. Bailey, 444 U. S. 394, 408. With respect to the three § 924 "knowingly" categories, the background presumption that every citizen knows the law makes it unnecessary to adduce specific evidence to prove an evil-meaning mind. As regards the "willfully" category here at issue, however, the jury must find that the defendant acted with such a mind, i. e., with knowledge that his
Page: Index 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007