Cite as: 524 U. S. 184 (1998)
Syllabus
conduct was unlawful. Also rejected is petitioner's second argument: that § 924(a)(1)(D) must be read to require knowledge of the law in light of this Court's adoption of a similar interpretation in cases concerned with willful violations of the tax laws, see, e. g., Cheek v. United States, 498 U. S. 192, 201, and the willful structuring of cash transactions to avoid a bank reporting requirement, see Ratzlaf, 510 U. S., at 138, 149. Those cases are readily distinguishable because they involved highly technical statutes that threatened to ensnare individuals engaged in apparently innocent conduct. That danger is not present here because the jury found that this petitioner knew that his conduct was unlawful. Pp. 191-196.
(b) Petitioner's additional arguments based on his reading of congressional intent are rejected. FOPA's legislative history is too ambiguous to offer him much assistance, since his main support lies in statements made by opponents of the bill. See, e. g., Schwegmann Brothers v. Calvert Distillers Corp., 341 U. S. 384, 394. His next argument— that, at the time FOPA was passed, the "willfulness" requirements in §§ 923(d)(1)(C)-(D) had uniformly been interpreted to require knowledge of the law—is inaccurate because a number of courts had reached different conclusions. Moreover, the cases adopting petitioner's view support the notion that disregard of a known legal obligation is sufficient to establish a willful violation, but in no way make it necessary. Petitioner's final argument—that § 922(b)(3), which is governed by § 924(a)(1)(D), indicates that Congress intended "willfully" to include knowledge of the law—fails for a similar reason. Pp. 196-199.
(c) The trial court's misstatement of law in a jury instruction given after the correct instructions were given—specifically, a sentence asserting that "the government [need not] prove that [petitioner] had knowledge that he was breaking the law"—does not provide a basis for reversal because (1) petitioner did not effectively object to that sentence; (2) in the context of the entire instructions, it seems unlikely that the jury was misled; (3) petitioner failed to raise this argument in the Second Circuit; and (4) this Court's grant of certiorari was limited to the narrow legal question hereinbefore decided. Pp. 199-200. 122 F. 3d 90, affirmed.
Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which OTMConnor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Souter, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 200. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Ginsburg, J., joined, post, p. 200.
Roger Bennet Adler argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Martin B. Adelman.
185
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007