Source: http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/print/book/export/html/419
Timestamp: 2016-05-28 03:57:18
Document Index: 757140719

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3372', '§ 3373', '§ 3372', '§ 3373', '§ 3373', '§ 3373', '§ 3372']

Home > Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions > 9. Offenses Under Other Titles > 9.13 Lacey Act—Defendant Should Have Known That Fish, Wildlife or Plants Were Illegally Taken
9.13 Lacey Act—Defendant Should Have Known That Fish, Wildlife or Plants Were Illegally Taken
9.13 LACEY ACT—DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE KNOWN FISH, WILDLIFE OR PLANTS WERE ILLEGALLY TAKEN (16 U.S.C. §§ 3372 and 3373(d)(2))
First, the defendant knowingly [[imported] [exported] [transported] [sold] [received] [acquired] [purchased]] [[fish] [wildlife] [plants]]; and
Second, the defendant in the exercise of due care should have known that the [fish] [wildlife] [plants] had been [taken] [possessed] [transported] [sold] in violation of or in a manner unlawful under [United States Law] [United States regulations] [United States treaties] [tribal law].
A defendant acts knowingly if [he] [she] is aware of the act and does not act through ignorance, mistake or accident. You may consider evidence of the defendant's words, acts, or omissions, along with all the other evidence, in deciding whether the defendant acted knowingly.
Due care means that degree of care which a reasonably prudent person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.
This instruction is for use in any case involving a violation of 16 U.S.C. § 3373(d)(2), a misdemeanor. See United States v. Hansen–Sturm, 44 F.3d 793, 794 (9th Cir.1995) (describing it as a lesser included offense of the felony provisions of the Lacey Act). Liability is premised on a finding of a violation of one of the subsections of 16 U.S.C. § 3372. For violations of § 3373(d)(1)(A), see Instruction 9.11. For violations of § 3373(d)(1)(B), see Instruction 9.12. For violations of § 3373(d)(3), see Instruction 9.14.
First, the defendant knowingly [[imported] [exported] [transported] [sold] [received] [acquired] [purchased]] [[fish] [wildlife]] in interstate or foreign commerce; and
Second, the defendant in the exercise of due care should have known that the [fish] [wildlife] had been [taken] [possessed] [transported] [sold] in violation of or in a manner unlawful under any [state law] [state regulation] [foreign law] [foreign regulation].
First, the defendant knowingly [imported] [exported] [transported] [sold] [received] [acquired] [purchased] plants in interstate or foreign commerce; and
Second, the defendant in the exercise of due care should have known that the plants had been [taken] [possessed] [transported] [sold] in violation of or in a manner unlawful under any [state law] [state regulation] [foreign law] [foreign regulation] that [protects plants] [[regulates [the theft of plants] [the taking of plants from a park, forest reserve, or other officially protected area] [the taking of plants without, or contrary to, required authorization]] [without the payment of appropriate royalties, taxes, or stumpage fees required for the plant by any law or regulation of any state or any foreign law or regulation] [in violation of any limitation under any law or regulation of any state, or under any foreign law or regulation, governing the export or transshipment of plants].
First, while within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, the defendant knowingly possessed [fish] [wildlife] which had been [taken] [possessed] [transported] [sold] in violation of or in a manner unlawful under any [state law] [state regulation] [foreign law] [foreign regulation] [tribal law]; and
Second, in the exercise of due care the defendant should have known that the [fish] [wildlife] had been [taken] [possessed] [transported] [sold] in violation of or in a manner unlawful under any [state law] [state regulation] [foreign law] [foreign regulation] [tribal law].
For an alleged violation of 16 U.S.C. § 3372(a)(3)(B) (plants in special U.S. jurisdiction), substitute the following elements:
First, while within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, the defendant knowingly possessed plants which had been [taken] [possessed] [transported] [sold] in violation of or in a manner unlawful under any [state law] [state regulation] [foreign law] [foreign regulation] that [protects plants] [[regulates [the theft of plants] [the taking of plants from a park, forest reserve, or other officially protected area] [the taking of plants without, or contrary to, required authorization]] [without the payment of appropriate royalties, taxes, or stumpage fees required for the plant by any law or regulation of any state or any foreign law or regulation] [in violation of any limitation under any law or regulation of any state, or under any foreign law or regulation, governing the export or transshipment of plants; and
Second, in the exercise of due care the defendant should have known that the plants had been [taken] [possessed] [transported] [sold] in violation of or in a manner unlawful under any [state law] [state regulation] [foreign law] [foreign regulation] that [protects plants] [[regulates [the theft of plants] [the taking of plants from a park, forest reserve, or other officially protected area] [the taking of plants without, or contrary to, required authorization]] [without the payment of appropriate royalties, taxes, or stumpage fees required for the plant by any law or regulation of any state or any foreign law or regulation] [in violation of any limitation under any law or regulation of any state, or under any foreign law or regulation, governing the export or transshipment of plants].
For a discussion of due care, see United States v. Thomas, 887 F.2d 1341, 1346 (9th Cir.1989).
File: 9.13_criminal.wpd [1] Source URL: http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/419
Links:[1] http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/sites/default/files/WPD/9.13_criminal_0.wpd