What was the logic Justice Jackson used in Morisette v. United States?

Answer 1

In Morisette v. US, 342 US 246 (1952) Mr. Justice Jackson delivered the opinion of the court, which held: 18 U.S.C. 641 (as it was codified in 1952) was held to require a criminal intent to be proven by the US in order to prove the underlying charge of theft from the US, and 2) it was error to instruct the jury that intent could be assumed from the act.

The background of the case (for those who are not familiar) is that Morisette regularly went hunting on government land, that was also used as a bombing range. Spent shell casing were often piled up by the governemnt, and were seemingly abandonded there. Morisette went and got a truckload of them, crushed them, and sold them for scrap, obtaining about $84 from the sale. He was charged with theft.

He argued that he believed the metal was abandonded and that he had no intention of stealing from the govermnemtn. The district court found him guilty, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed.

The logic used by Justice Jackson, (who gives a very long, and learned history on the element of Intent in US criminal jurisprudence) is that on many if not most of the common law offenses, (which of course, must be codified to be part of US Law), the element of intent is quite clear. The fact that Congress failed or decided not to require in the statute a statement of intent does not negate the necessity.

He also held that since intent was a necessary finding, that the trial court erred by determining that the court could find that as a matter of law. In fact, the finding of intent is NOT a matter of law, but is a matter of fact for a jury (or other trier of fact) to determine after appropriate instruction. He noted that had the jury been properly instructed and had found the defendant guilty, then the case would have been moot.

I hope this helps. If you have further questions, email me.

Answer 2

In common law you have to show intent. That concept is prevailing
You can't presume intent (presumtive intent) from act or a statute, you have to show it. prove it or draw some nexus
The mere fact that are loading shell casings in your truck doesn't show intent to steal, convert....


It's been well over 20 yrs since I answered this one so it's the best I can do

Answer 3

Go here for the opinion:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=342&page=252