856 F.3d 1216
9th Cir.2017Background
- Olson and Wells had an informal 50/50 business partnership; Wells applied for a USDA grant that required certain equipment purchases and gave USDA a first lien on equipment bought with grant funds.
- Kyle Beus received a separate USDA grant and covertly inflated equipment invoices and misappropriated grant funds; some equipment was leased rather than purchased as reported.
- Olson prepared grant paperwork for Wells that listed purchases of a $35,000 CIP system and a $50,000 glycol chiller even though those items were leased; she also filed a final report repeating those false expenditures.
- Olson later learned Beus submitted false invoices, received kickbacks, and diverted grant funds for personal investments; her contemporaneous notes and statements reflected awareness that Beus’s actions were improper and could lead to criminal exposure.
- A jury convicted Olson of misprision of felony under 18 U.S.C. § 4 for concealing and failing to report Beus’s submission of false statements to the USDA in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014.
- Olson appealed, arguing the government failed to prove she knew the conduct she concealed constituted a felony; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Olson) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 4 requires proof that the defendant knew the concealed conduct was a felony | § 4 requires only knowledge of the facts that make up the underlying offense, not knowledge that those facts constitute a felony | Government argued knowledge that the principal committed the elements is sufficient; did not concede requirement that defendant knew it was a felony | Court held § 4 requires proof both that the defendant knew the elements of the underlying offense and that the defendant knew the conduct was a felony (i.e., punishable by death or >1 year imprisonment) |
| What it means to "know" the conduct is a felony — required degree of knowledge | Olson urged the Court to require knowledge that the offense was a federal felony cognizable by U.S. courts | Government asserted knowledge of the jurisdictional/federal nature is unnecessary under precedent | Court held defendant must know the offense is punishable by death or >1 year (statutory definition of felony), but need not know it is a federal offense or the precise term; jurisdictional knowledge is irrelevant |
| Whether the evidence was sufficient that Olson knew the offense was punishable by >1 year imprisonment | Olson contended evidence was insufficient to show she knew the underlying offense met the felony threshold | Government pointed to grant forms warning of up to five years’ imprisonment and Olson’s USDA experience as supporting an inference of knowledge | Court held the evidence (explicit grant warnings and Olson’s role/sophistication) was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find she knew the offense could be punished by more than one year |
| Whether failure to instruct jury regarding knowledge-of-felony element required reversal | Olson did not tender a specific instruction or raise a challenge to the instructions on this precise point on appeal (aside from unanimity issue addressed separately) | Government relied on the trial record and sufficiency review | Court did not reverse on instructional grounds; addressed only sufficiency of the evidence and noted a defendant in future cases may request such an instruction |
Key Cases Cited
- Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (presumption that a knowledge requirement applies to each element of an offense)
- Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419 (knowledge requirement applied to each statutory phrase where text/historical context unclear)
- United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (applying scienter to all statutory subdivisions absent contrary indication)
- X-Citement Video, Inc. v. United States, 513 U.S. 64 (presumption that ‘knowingly’ modifies all statutory elements)
- United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671 (defendant need not know conduct violated federal law/jurisdictional fact)
- United States v. Graves, 143 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir.) (defendant must know each element of underlying offense when charged as accessory after the fact)