United States v Balint
258 U.S. 250 (1922)
FACTS
-∆ were indicted for violating the Narcotic Act of 1914, punishable by up to five years in prison.
-∆ demurred on the ground that indictment failed to charge that they knew they were selling prohibited drugs.
ISSUE
-Is knowledge required by the statute if the Defendant did not know they were selling illegal drugs?
HOLDING
-No, the Supreme Court held that knowledge was not required by the statute.
RULES
-Maintenance of a public policy provides “that he who shall do them shall do them at his peril and will not be heard to plead in defense of good faith or ignorance.”
-No mens rea is required, if you are selling it you should know what you are selling was in the business of sakes and had ample opportunity to figure it out
ANALYSIS
-The seller is the least cost avoider
-Here there is difficulty of proof, how would they prove knowledge?
Public policy argument- better to protect the innocent buyer than the innocent seller
258 U.S. 250 (1922)
FACTS
-∆ were indicted for violating the Narcotic Act of 1914, punishable by up to five years in prison.
-∆ demurred on the ground that indictment failed to charge that they knew they were selling prohibited drugs.
ISSUE
-Is knowledge required by the statute if the Defendant did not know they were selling illegal drugs?
HOLDING
-No, the Supreme Court held that knowledge was not required by the statute.
RULES
-Maintenance of a public policy provides “that he who shall do them shall do them at his peril and will not be heard to plead in defense of good faith or ignorance.”
-No mens rea is required, if you are selling it you should know what you are selling was in the business of sakes and had ample opportunity to figure it out
ANALYSIS
-The seller is the least cost avoider
-Here there is difficulty of proof, how would they prove knowledge?
Public policy argument- better to protect the innocent buyer than the innocent seller
Hi! Thanks for this, I'm reading the case right now and wanted more specific detail on it. This really helped. I did notice that you put the year 1992 instead of 1922 in the citation. Thanks still :)
ReplyDeleteThank you for letting me on to that error. I'm glad this was helpful for you.
Delete