What is the name of your state? CA
Don't know why the stolen property thread was closed, except maybe because things went off topic. There was an interesting discussion developing with regard to the mental state required for guilt where the penal statute states that the accused had knowledge.
Does knowledge mean
(1) That the accused had actual knowledge, or
(2) That a reasonable person would have known.
I am fairly certain that the standard is (1), and California case law seems to back that position. I believe the disagreement in the other thread may have been due to a misunderstanding with regard to whether evidence of the obviousness of something can be used to prove knowledge.
I agree that if a reasonable person would have known, a jury may conclude that the accused knew, and subsequently convict. But, importantly, a jury may not convict the accused if they conclude that the defendant did not know, even if a reasonable person would have known.
Don't know why the stolen property thread was closed, except maybe because things went off topic. There was an interesting discussion developing with regard to the mental state required for guilt where the penal statute states that the accused had knowledge.
Does knowledge mean
(1) That the accused had actual knowledge, or
(2) That a reasonable person would have known.
I am fairly certain that the standard is (1), and California case law seems to back that position. I believe the disagreement in the other thread may have been due to a misunderstanding with regard to whether evidence of the obviousness of something can be used to prove knowledge.
I agree that if a reasonable person would have known, a jury may conclude that the accused knew, and subsequently convict. But, importantly, a jury may not convict the accused if they conclude that the defendant did not know, even if a reasonable person would have known.
I was a little worried when 3 of this forum's most knowledgeable members seemed to disagree with me.