CONVICTING THE INNOCENT

Can you be convicted of crime that you did not know you were committing, even if you had no intention of committing a crime?  Unfortunately, yes you can.  People v. Stanley, 921 N.E.2D 445 (1^st Dist. 2010).  The First Appellate District Court decided in 2010 that a person did not have to have knowledge that a gun was defaced to be prosecuted for possessing a defaced gun.  Instead, they ruled that the person only had to knowingly possess a gun.  This basically approves of punishing someone who, in my opinion, lacked the appropriate, and required, mental state, or knowledge that they were committing a crime.  Without the appropriate mental state, no crime has been committed.  In my opinion, this allows the punishing of the innocent.  The court relied upon another case, People v. Ivy, 133 Ill. App. 3d 647, 479 N.E.2d 399 (5^th Dist. 1985).  The Ivy case dealt with a woman who possessed a sawed off shotgun.  The court held that the prosecution did not have to prove that the woman knew that the gun barrel was the appropriate length as required by statute.  In the Stanley case, however, the defendant was charged with possessing a defaced gun because the identification marks for the gun had been scratched off.  As a practical matter, the Ivy case is more troubling because it would be difficult for most people to know the precise gun barrel length by merely looking at it.  This is not true for the Stanley case.  So long as one can see, whether the serial numbers identifying the gun were scratched off can be determined with minimal effort.  If the defendant in Stanley had not noticed serial numbers were scratched off, however, then, to the best of his knowledge, he was merely possessing a gun and not a defaced gun.  But any person could check for serial numbers.  I have less of a problem with the law imposing the requirement that a gun owner has to look for serial numbers or risk being charged with possessing a defaced gun.  It is a much bigger deal to be required to look up the law on how long a gun barrel must be and then forcing the owner to measure the gun barrel.  The gun owner should probably also look up case law to if courts have adopted a single definition as to how the gun barrel should be measured.  Does the measurement extend back to the firing pin?  Is it only the visible part of the barrel because some gun barrels are covered by wood stock?  There is clearly a danger of punishing the innocent in cases like these.  It is one thing to be “tough on crime.”  That is not the duty, however, of the court which must be fair and impartial.  It is a miscarriage of justice to punish the innocent for the sake of appearing tough on crime.  I am not familiar with the facts of either the Stanley or the Ivy case to know what was just in either case.  The holding in both cases, though, opens the door to punishing someone who never intended to break the law.  http://www.ellislawfirm.pro/