State v. Ndikum
2012 Minn. LEXIS 298
| Minn. | 2012Background
- Ndikum, a Minnesota attorney, was charged with possession of a pistol in public after carrying a briefcase containing a gun into a courthouse.
- Ndikum testified he did not know the gun was in his briefcase on September 9, 2009.
- The district court refused to instruct the jury that knowledge of possession was an element of the gross misdemeanor count.
- The jury found him guilty of possession of a pistol in public; the court of appeals reversed, holding knowledge was an element the State must prove.
- This court affirms the court of appeals and holds that knowledge of possession is an element the State must prove for § 624.714, subd. la.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is knowledge of possession an element of § 624.714, la? | Ndikum argues knowledge is required as an element. | State argues knowledge is not required; statute silent on mens rea. | Knowledge is an element; state must prove it. |
| Does § 624.714, la, dispense with mens rea as a public welfare offense? | Ndikum contends the statute is a public welfare offense with no mens rea requirement. | State contends no such dispensing is implied by silence. | Statute is not a public welfare offense; mens rea remains required. |
| Does silence about mens rea prove legislative intent to dispense with it? | Ndikum relies on silence to imply no mens rea. | State argues silence could be read as no explicit intent to dispense with mens rea. | Silence does not indicate dispensing with mens rea; legislative intent does not show strict liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (U.S. 1994) (public welfare statutes and mens rea inference; strict liability requires clear statutory intent)
- In re C.R.M., 611 N.W.2d 802 (Minn. 2000) (reading mens rea into possession of weapon on school property; legislative intent must be clear)
- State v. Al-Naseer, 734 N.W.2d 679 (Minn. 2007) (reading mens rea into certain statutes; caution against dispensing with fault)
- State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 226 N.W.2d 609 (Minn. 1975) (reading knowledge requirement into possession statutes)
- United States v. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422 (U.S. 1978) (statutory interpretation of mens rea and public welfare concepts)
- Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1985) (public welfare offenses and mens rea concepts in statutory interpretation)
- Balint v. United States, 258 U.S. 250 (U.S. 1922) (dangerous goods regulation and mens rea considerations)