Ignorance of the law is never a defense in criminal law. However, many criminal laws, especially the more serious ones, require that the prosecution prove that the defendant had “knowledge” of the crime and/or a certain “intent.” Because both “knowledge” and “intent” are a state of mind, it can often be difficult for a prosecution to prove “knowledge” and “intent.” It is common for defense theories to hinge upon the prosecution’s inability or deficiencies in proving these mindsets.

Just about every crime has a knowledge and/or intent element. One example is contained in Florida’s Theft Statute which establishes a crime with both a knowledge and intent component:

A person commits theft if he or she knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently:

(a) Deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property.

(b) Appropriate the property to his or her own use or to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the property.

Under Theft, a person must both know they are stealing and be intending to do so. It sounds simple enough, but there are many scenarios where these elements are the difference between a conviction and an acquittal. For any crime where knowledge or intent is an element, a prosecutor and police often rely on a defendant’s own words to establish these elements. One of the reasons defense attorneys advise against speaking with the authorities is because, by speaking to the authorities, people often offer crucial evidence that the authorities would not otherwise have.

Every crime is different. Every case is different. A complete understanding of the cases is necessary to determine whether a prosecution has problems proving knowledge or intent.

If you or a loved one is concerned that you are not guilty because you did not know about or intend the crime and are seeking guidance, contact me to today.

Contact John