Opinion ID: 1868410
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Common Law and Statutory Construction

Text: Although we are essentially covering the same ground discussed by Judge Cowart in Oxx, we do so to more fully explain our holding. As noted in Judge Cowart's opinion, courts usually construe criminal statutes in light of the background rules of the common law. In addition, of course, statutes defining crimes are to be strictly construed against the State and most favorably to the accused. [7] At common law, all crimes consisted of an act or omission coupled with a requisite mental intent or mens rea. [8] State v. Oxx, 417 So.2d 287, 288-89 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). The general rule was that scienter or mens rea was a necessary element in the indictment and proof of every crime. United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250, 251, 42 S.Ct. 301, 302, 66 L.Ed. 604 (1922). This rule was subsequently followed in regard to statutory crimes even where the statutory definition did not expressly include scienter in its terms. Id. at 251-52, 42 S.Ct. at 302; Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 620 n.1, 114 S.Ct. 1793, 1805 n. 1, 128 L.Ed.2d 608 (1994)(stating presumption of mens rea has been applied not only to statutes codifying traditional common law offenses but also to offenses that are entirely a creature of statute)(Ginsburg, J., concurring). However, since the legislature is vested with the authority to define the elements of a crime, determining whether scienter is an essential element of a statutory crime is a question of legislative intent. Staples, 511 U.S. at 603-605, 114 S.Ct. at 1796-97; Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 258-59, 72 S.Ct. 240, 247, 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952); Balint, 258 U.S. at 252, 42 S.Ct. at 302. Historically, some courts have drawn a distinction between statutes codifying crimes recognized at common law and statutes that proscribe conduct not prohibited at common law. The common law crimes were referred to as crimes mala in se or infamous crimes, and evil intent was considered to be inherent in the idea of the offense. [9] Id. In contrast, the category of crimes proscribing conduct not prohibited at common law were classified as crimes mala prohibita, and the doing of the act was considered punishable, regardless of intent. Thus, one rule of statutory interpretation has emerged suggesting that the legislature continued to require intent where codifying crimes mala in se, but where codifying crimes mala prohibita, intent was not required. Id. However, many courts and commentators have strongly suggested that this is an unsound criterion to follow. See, e.g., Francis B. Sayre, Public Welfare Offenses, 33 Colum. L.Rev. 55, 71 (1933); cf. Morissette, 342 U.S. at 260, 72 S.Ct. at 248 (Neither this Court nor, so far as we are aware, any other has undertaken to delineate a precise line or set forth comprehensive criteria for distinguishing between crimes that require a mental element and crimes that do not.). One critic notes that [m]any offenses which are held not to require proof of mens rea are highly immoral; and many requiring it are not inherently immoral at all. Sayre, supra, at 71. We agree that this method of statutory analysis is of little help here. Other courts have focused on the patent inconsistency in the imposition of substantial criminal sanctions to conduct that does not include scienter. See United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, ___, 115 S.Ct. 464, 469, 130 L.Ed.2d 372 (1994)(holding that harsh penalties of up to ten years in prison and substantial fines and forfeiture for violation of child pornography statute supported interpretation of statute to require that defendant have knowledge of minority of performer); see also Cohen v. State, 125 So.2d 560 (Fla.1960) (statute prohibiting sale of obscene material required that State prove defendant's knowledge of obscene nature of material). For example, the United States Supreme Court has stated: Similarly, commentators collecting the early cases have argued that offenses punishable by imprisonment cannot be understood to be public welfare offenses, but must require mens rea. See R. Perkins, Criminal Law 793-798 (2d ed.1969) (suggesting that the penalty should be the starting point in determining whether a statute describes a public welfare offense); Sayre, supra, at 72 (Crimes punishable with prison sentences ... ordinarily require proof of a guilty intent). In rehearsing the characteristics of the public welfare offense, we, too, have included in our consideration the punishments imposed and have noted that penalties commonly are relatively small, and conviction does no grave damage to an offender's reputation. Morissette, 342 U.S., at 256, 72 S.Ct., at 246. We have even recognized that it was [u]nder such considerations that courts have construed statutes to dispense with mens rea. Ibid. Our characterization of the public welfare offense in Morissette hardly seems apt, however, for a crime that is a felony.... After all, felony is, as we noted in distinguishing certain common law crimes from public welfare offenses, `as bad a word as you can give to man or thing.' Morissette, supra, at 260, 72 S.Ct., at 248 (quoting 2 F. Pollock & F. Maitland, History of English Law 465 (2d ed. 1899)). Close adherence to the early cases described above might suggest that punishing a violation as a felony is simply incompatible with the theory of the public welfare offense. In this view, absent a clear statement from Congress that mens rea is not required, we should not apply the public welfare offense rationale to interpret any statute defining a felony offense as dispensing with mens rea. But see Balint, supra . Staples, 511 U.S. at 617-18, 114 S.Ct. at 1803-04 (footnotes omitted). We agree with this view and, consistent therewith, conclude that the criminal statutes at issue before us today are more akin to offenses that presume a scienter requirement in the absence of express contrary intent. [10] The penalties imposed for violating sections 893.13(6)(a) and 893.147(1) are incongruous with crimes that require no mens rea. For example, a defendant convicted of possession of a controlled substance can receive up to five years imprisonment and a fine of up to $5,000. §§ 775.082(3)(d), 775.083(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (1995). We are also influenced by the fact that [t]he existence of a mens rea is the rule of, rather than the exception to, the principles of Anglo-American criminal jurisprudence. Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 500, 71 S.Ct. 857, 862, 95 L.Ed. 1137 (1951). The United States Supreme Court has stated that offenses that require no mens rea generally are disfavored, and has suggested that some indication of legislative intent, express or implied, is required to dispense with mens rea as an element of a crime. Staples, 511 U.S. at 605-06, 114 S.Ct. at 1797. There is no such indication of legislative intent to dispense with mens rea here. Our holding depends substantially on our view that if the legislature had intended to make criminals out of people who were wholly ignorant of the offending characteristics of items in their possession, and subject them to lengthy prison terms, it would have spoken more clearly to that effect. [11] See Staples, 511 U.S. at 618-19, 114 S.Ct. at 1804. Interpreting the statutes as dispensing with scienter would criminalize a broad range of apparently innocent conduct. Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 426, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 2088, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985). As noted in Liparota, a strict reading of the statute with no scienter requirement would render criminal a mail carrier's unknowing delivery of a package which contained cocaine: Of course, [the legislature] could have intended that this broad range of conduct be made illegal, perhaps with the understanding that prosecutors would exercise their discretion to avoid such harsh results. However, given the paucity of material suggesting that [the legislature] did so intend, we are reluctant to adopt such a sweeping interpretation. Id. at 427, 105 S.Ct. at 2089. This is precisely the point made long ago by the Court in Rutskin v. State which we have previously quoted, and with which we agree. [12] As eloquently stated by Judge Wigginton in Frank, the requirement of guilty knowledge must be observed in order to safeguard innocent persons from being made the victims of unlawful acts perpetrated by others, and of which they have no knowledge. 199 So.2d at 121. Moreover, we agree: The group of offenses punishable without proof of any criminal intent must be sharply limited. The sense of justice of the community will not tolerate the infliction of punishment which is substantial upon those innocent of intentional or negligent wrongdoing; and the law in the last analysis must reflect the general community sense of justice. Sayre, supra, at 70. In short, we conclude that good sense and the background rule of the common law favoring a scienter requirement should govern interpretation of the two statutes in this case. We believe it was the intent of the legislature to prohibit the knowing possession of illicit items and to prevent persons from doing so by attaching a substantial criminal penalty to such conduct. Thus, we hold that the State was required to prove that Chicone knew of the illicit nature of the items in his possession. [13] As all agree, including the State, the legislature would not ordinarily criminalize the innocent possession of illegal drugs. Silence does not suggest that the legislature dispensed with scienter here. The State, to its credit, does not claim that a defendant shown to be without guilty knowledge could be convicted under the possession statute. Rather, the State contends that lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of the item possessed should be raised and proven as an affirmative defense. We disagree. Nowhere has the legislature provided for such an affirmative defense. Furthermore, if the statute did not require guilty knowledge, then obviously a person who possessed an illicit object even without knowledge of its illicit nature would be as guilty of violating the statute (that had no scienter requirement) as one who did have knowledge. Lack of knowledge could hardly be a defense to a statute that did not require such knowledge. Hence, the State's position really supports our holding and we commend the State for its forthright approach and candor.