Public Welfare Offenses

42 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• State v. Adkins
  96 So. 3d 412· Fla.· 2012-07-12 ·cited 1048×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that section 893.13 of Florida's Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, as amended by section 893.101, is constitutional despite eliminating knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance as an element of the offense and mak
• Chicone v. State
  684 So. 2d 736· Fla.· 1996-10-24 ·cited 299×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that guilty knowledge of the illicit nature of a substance is a required element of drug possession and drug paraphernalia possession crimes under Florida law, though such knowledge need not be explicitly alleged in the charging information. The cou
• Standard OIL Co. OF Tex. & Pasotex Pipe Line Co. v. United States
  307 F.2d 120· 5th Cir.· 1962-08-15 ·cited 47×
  A corporation cannot be held criminally liable for the acts of unfaithful employees who act outside the scope of their employment and without intent to benefit the corporation, even if those acts involve violating a statute.
• United States v. Holland
  810 F.2d 1215· D.C. Cir.· 1987-02-06 ·cited 46×
  The statute criminalizing drug distribution within 1,000 feet of a school (21 U.S.C. sec. 845a) is constitutional as applied, and does not violate equal protection or due process principles.
• United States v. Custer Channel Wing Corp. & Willard R. Custer
  376 F.2d 675· 4th Cir.· 1967-04-03 ·cited 45×
  The court held that appellants' sales of unregistered stock constituted a public offering, not exempt under Section 4(1), and that their intentional violation of the injunction, even without specific intent to violate the law, was sufficient for criminal contempt.
• United States v. Charnay
  537 F.2d 341· 9th Cir.· 1976-05-07 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently alleged the requisite intent and scienter under Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, despite the petition for rehearing claiming conflict.
• United States v. Schwartz
  464 F.2d 499· 2d Cir.· 1972-07-17 ·cited 29×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the appellant's actions constituted an unlawful hypothecation of securities and that his Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights were not violated.
• Giorgetti v. State
  821 So. 2d 417· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-07-17 ·cited 26×
  Victor Giorgetti was convicted of violating sexual offender registration statutes by failing to report his change of address within 48 hours after his probation terminated. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction, holding that despite the statutes' silent text
• United States v. Rolf Wilhelm Otto Anton
  683 F.2d 1011· 7th Cir.· 1982-05-03 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the conviction, interpreting 8 U.S.C. § 1326 as imposing strict liability for illegal reentry without a reasonable mistake defense.
• United States v. Ayo-Gonzalez
  536 F.2d 652· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that mens rea is not a required element for conviction under 16 U.S.C. § 1081, and any Miranda violation regarding the defendant's identification as captain was harmless error.
• ST. Johnsbury Trucking Co., Inc. v. United States
  220 F.2d 393· 1st Cir.· 1955-03-24 ·cited 22×
  A corporation can be held liable for knowingly violating regulations if any agent or servant, acting within the scope of employment, possesses the requisite guilty knowledge.
• United States v. Engler
  806 F.2d 425· 3d Cir.· 1986-11-26 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the felony provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) do not offend due process even if construed to impose strict liability, because the conduct is not wholly passive and is not entirely surprising to learn is not innocent.
• United States v. Chicago Express, Inc.
  235 F.2d 785· 7th Cir.· 1956-08-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury that the defendant must have had a specific wrongful intent to violate the regulations.
• United States v. Fritz Erne
  576 F.2d 212· 9th Cir.· 1978-04-07 ·cited 15×
  A conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 7215 does not require proof of intent, and a defendant must show more than just a revenue officer's potential discriminatory motive to warrant an evidentiary hearing on discriminatory prosecution.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Aleida Rodriguez
  423 F.2d 9· 3d Cir.· 1970-03-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the government must prove defendants knew the house was a house of ill fame to convict them under the vagrancy statute, and that the evidence presented was sufficient to support this finding.
• Hughes v. United States
  338 F.2d 651· 1st Cir.· 1964-12-04 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the indictment was insufficient because it failed to allege felonious intent, which is a necessary element for conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 549.
• United States v. Juzwiak
  258 F.2d 844· 2d Cir.· 1958-08-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1407 was valid, as the statute does not require proof of willfulness or actual knowledge of the registration requirement.
• United States v. O'Mara
  963 F.2d 1288· 9th Cir.· 1992-05-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not err in its jury instructions regarding knowledge of the weapon's characteristics or in admitting the challenged evidence.
• United States v. Brandt
  717 F.2d 955· 6th Cir.· 1983-09-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the exceptions within the Migratory Bird Treaty Act regulation regarding hunting on baited areas are not unconstitutionally vague because the crucial inquiry is the intent of the person seeding the field, not the specific agricultural practices used.
• United States v. Flum
  518 F.2d 39· 8th Cir.· 1975-06-20 ·cited 12×
  The Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 1472(7), does not require proof of specific intent to conceal a weapon when attempting to board an aircraft.
• United States v. Greenbaum
  138 F.2d 437· 3d Cir.· 1943-10-25 ·cited 12×
  A conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 333(a) for introducing adulterated food into interstate commerce does not require proof of the defendant's knowledge or wilfulness.
• State v. Gruen
  586 So. 2d 1280· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-10-01 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the statute prohibiting careless operation of a vessel does not violate due process by failing to require a mens rea element, as it is a public welfare offense.
• Johnson v. State
  37 So. 3d 975· Fla. 1st DCA· 2010-06-22 ·cited 10×
  Florida's cocaine sale statute does not violate substantive due process by omitting guilty knowledge as an element, because the legislature explicitly provided in section 893.101 that lack of knowledge of the controlled substance's illicit nature is an affirmative defense rather
• United States v. FMC Corp.
  572 F.2d 902· 2d Cir.· 1978-02-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act imposes strict liability, meaning a defendant can be convicted for killing migratory birds even without specific intent to do so.
• State v. Rubio
  917 So. 2d 383· Fla. 5th DCA· 2005-12-30 ·cited 8×
  Florida appealed the dismissal of criminal charges against dental providers and associated defendants for Medicaid fraud, patient brokering, racketeering, and white-collar crimes. The trial court found Florida's Medicaid provider fraud statute unconstitutional under the Supremacy
• United States v. White Fuel Corp.
  498 F.2d 619· 1st Cir.· 1974-06-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Refuse Act imposes strict liability, and a defendant cannot avoid conviction by proving it acted diligently or lacked knowledge of the oil seepage.
• Carter v. State
  710 So. 2d 110· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-04-15 ·cited 6×
  This case addresses whether a jury instruction on involuntary intoxication should be available in DUI prosecutions. The court holds that when a defendant unknowingly ingests a substance that impairs driving ability, due process requires that an involuntary intoxication instructio
• Tart v. Commonwealth OF Mass.
  949 F.2d 490· 1st Cir.· 1991-11-15 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's rejection of Tart's collateral challenges, finding his Fourth Amendment claim and preemption claim meritless, and his jury instruction claim procedurally barred.
• United States v. Weiler
  458 F.2d 474· 3d Cir.· 1972-04-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) does not require the prosecution to prove the defendant knew his conduct was unlawful, and that such a construction does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
• United States v. Demetris Holloway
  744 F.2d 527· 6th Cir.· 1984-09-24 ·cited 4×
  Felonious intent is not an element of a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) (possession of a controlled substance); the statute is a public welfare offense requiring only knowledge that the substance possessed is controlled.
• United States v. Stagman
  446 F.2d 489· 6th Cir.· 1971-07-27 ·cited 4×
• State v. Giorgetti
  868 So. 2d 512· Fla.· 2004-03-04 ·cited 2×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that sexual offender registration statutes require the State to prove the defendant's knowledge of the registration requirement as an element of the crime. The Court reversed the conviction of Victor Giorgetti, who was charged with failing to regist
• United States v. Lavon R. Kent
  912 F.2d 277· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-01 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge argues the majority erred by deciding the case on grounds not presented to the district court and by misinterpreting the scienter requirement for the offense.
• United States v. Pitts
  908 F.2d 458· 9th Cir.· 1990-07-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the statute enhancing criminal penalties for drug sales near schools is constitutional, rejecting challenges based on equal protection and due process.
• Texas-Oklahoma Express, Inc. v. United States
  429 F.2d 100· 10th Cir.· 1970-07-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to prove the trailer was both 'unattended' and 'knowingly' violated the regulation, affirming the conviction.
• Gordon v. United States
  203 F.2d 248· 10th Cir.· 1953-02-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that partners could be held criminally liable for their employees' violations of a statute without proof of the partners' actual participation or guilty knowledge.
• Bridon v. State
  407 So. 3d 590· Fla. 3d DCA· 2025-04-09 ·cited 1×
  A motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of the State's evidence preserves the issue for appeal without requiring renewal after the defendant presents evidence, and public welfare offenses do not require proof of criminal intent.