Liparota v. United States
471 U.S. 419 (1985)
Rule of Law:
In a prosecution under the federal food stamp fraud statute, 7 U.S.C. § 2024(b)(1), the government must prove the defendant knew that his or her conduct was unauthorized by statute or regulations. The statute's mens rea element of 'knowingly' applies not just to the act itself (e.g., possessing coupons) but also to the illicit nature of that act.
Facts:
- Frank Liparota was the co-owner of Moon’s Sandwich Shop in Chicago.
- The U.S. Department of Agriculture had not authorized Liparota's restaurant to accept food stamps.
- On a first occasion, Liparota's brother, in Liparota's presence, purchased $195 worth of food stamps from an undercover agent for $150.
- A week later, the agent sold $500 worth of food stamps to Liparota and his brother for $350.
- Approximately one month later, Liparota personally bought $500 worth of food stamps from the agent for $300.
Procedural Posture:
- Frank Liparota was indicted in the U.S. District Court for violating the federal food stamp fraud statute.
- At trial, the District Court judge refused Liparota's request for a jury instruction that would require the government to prove he 'purposely intend[ed] to violate the law.'
- The jury returned a verdict of guilty.
- Liparota, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, siding with the trial court's interpretation of the statute's knowledge requirement.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Liparota's petition for a writ of certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a conviction for food stamp fraud under 7 U.S.C. § 2024(b)(1) require the government to prove that the defendant knew his acquisition or possession of food stamps was in a manner not authorized by law?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
Yes, a conviction under 7 U.S.C. § 2024(b)(1) requires the government to prove that the defendant knew his conduct was unauthorized. Absent a clear indication from Congress to the contrary, courts should presume that a criminal statute requires a showing of mens rea, or a 'guilty mind.' To interpret the statute to not require knowledge of illegality would criminalize a wide range of seemingly innocent conduct, such as a food stamp recipient unknowingly using stamps at a store that overcharges. Furthermore, the rule of lenity dictates that ambiguity in a criminal statute should be resolved in favor of the defendant. This interpretation does not create a 'mistake of law' defense; rather, it makes knowledge of the unauthorized nature of the act an element of the crime itself, similar to how knowledge that goods are 'stolen' is an element of receiving stolen property.
Dissenting - Justice White
No, a conviction under 7 U.S.C. § 2024(b)(1) does not require the government to prove the defendant knew his conduct was unauthorized. The most natural reading of the statute is that 'knowingly' modifies only the verbs 'uses, transfers, acquires, alters, or possesses,' not the subsequent phrase 'in any manner not authorized.' The majority's holding improperly creates an ignorance-of-the-law defense, contrary to the well-established principle that knowledge of the law's content is not an element of an offense. It is sufficient that the defendant knew he was acquiring food stamps; he does not also have to know the specific regulations that made his particular acquisition illegal. The statute is akin to drug laws where a defendant need not know that possessing a substance is 'unauthorized,' only that he knowingly possesses the controlled substance.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark in criminal law for its robust application of the presumption of mens rea in statutory interpretation. It establishes that unless Congress explicitly and unambiguously creates a strict liability public welfare offense, courts will read a 'knowledge of illegality' element into the statute, especially where the underlying conduct is not inherently dangerous or blameworthy. The decision reinforces the rule of lenity, requiring that ambiguous criminal statutes be construed in favor of the accused. This precedent significantly impacts how federal criminal statutes with ambiguous mental state requirements are interpreted, forcing prosecutors to prove a defendant's knowledge of the facts that make their conduct illegal.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Liparota v. United States (1985)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"