Facts: Statute says it’s a felony to "knowingly and unlawfully possess . . . Six hundred twenty-five milligrams
of a hallucinogen." Δ was convicted of possessing mushrooms which had this hallucinogenic properties of more
than the statutory limit. Δ argued he did not know that the mushrooms would have so much. No evidence was
offered on how much hallucinogen would typically be in that amount of mushrooms. But court convicted him
because they said the statute implied "knowingly" to refer only to possession of it, not to the actual weight.
Issue: When a statute states that to be a felony, the offender must have "knowingly" committed the act, does
the mens rea requirement of knowingly doing something refer to all elements of the statute? - Yes.
Reasoning:
o Court first looks at legislative intent - the statutory language
• It says "knowingly and unlawfully possesses 625 mg of a hallucinogen
• It must also mean the weight, b/c it stated in the same sentence
Therefore, there is a mens rea element associated with the weight of the drug
o Also, looking at the legislature's culpability requirements:
• Says that when the statute says a culpable mental state is to be applied to an element of the offense, it
is presumed to apply to every element of the offense, unless clearly stated otherwise.
RULE: Unless otherwise stated in the statute, the mental element of "knowingly" is to be applied to all
elements of the crime.
Class Notes:
• There has to be a culpable mental state for each element of the crime.
• You could probably prove here the Δ was reckless - he said "this is a shitload of mushrooms" - he should
have known that it could be over the statutory limit
______________________________________