Mens Rea: The Importance of Proving Intent In a Criminal Case

In a case that emphasizes the importance of instructing the jury on all meaningful elements of a charge, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently heard an appeal arising from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. This case, United States v. Bush, focuses on a challenged jury instruction in a criminal trial, highlighting the importance of instructing on all statutorily imposed requirements of a criminal charge.

Frederick Bush was convicted after leaving the Keeton Residential Reentry Center in Tallahassee, Florida, before completing his required stay. Bush was subsequently indicted and convicted of knowingly escaping from custody by willfully failing to remain within the extended limits of confinement under 18 U.S.C. §§ 751(a) and 4082(a). The first section prohibits escaping custody, while the latter section defines willful failure to remain within the extended limits of confinement as an escape. To defend himself, Bush asserted that an employee at the Keeton facility had threatened him, which led to his departure. Bush claimed that although he knew he did not have permission to leave, he did not realize he was violating the law. The government and Bush disagreed on the appropriate standard, with the government advocating for an interpretation that required only that they prove Bush “knew his actions would result in leaving physical confinement without permission.” Ultimately, the district court gave the jury instructions reflecting the government’s interpretation, giving rise to this appeal.

On appeal, the Court reviewed the jury instructions at issue. The Court found that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of §751(a) supported the government’s view— that the defendant must know the actions will result in leaving confinement without permission —but §4082(a) explicitly required the act to occur “willfully.” Bush’s indictment included both statutes, and therefore the elements of both statutes had to be proven. Accordingly, the jury instructions should have reflected the willfulness requirement under §4082(a). Under prevailing views defining willfulness, the government needed to prove that Bush knew his conduct was unlawful. The Court found that the inadequacies of the jury instructions were sufficient to constitute plain error, and probably had an impact on Bush’s trial outcomes. To remedy this error, the Court vacated the previous judgment and remanded Bush’s case for a new trial.

United States v. Bush demonstrates the necessity of proving and instructing on all elements of a charge, including the mens rea, or intent, required for the offense. Bush’s original conviction was overturned because the district court’s jury instructions failed to properly instruct on the intention required for Bush to commit the charged offenses. This ruling illustrates the importance of proving, not only the action itself, but the mindset, in criminal cases.