Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mens Rea And Stipulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State says record includes stipulation to prior felony and knowledge; panel questions mens‑rea argument
Summary
During argument, the state told the panel the trial record contained a detailed stipulation covering prior felony, prohibited status and knowledge of that status; the panel probed whether Washington law requires proving a defendant knew he was a felon for unlawful possession charges.
A member of the panel asked whether the state must prove that a defendant knew the facts that make possession illegal — specifically, knowledge of a prior felony — and counsel debated how Washington precedents apply.
Ras Barnea, representing the state, told the panel that on this record the issue was resolved by a detailed stipulation: ‘‘Not only was there a stipulation of the conviction of a felony, there's a stipulation as to knowledge,’’ he said, arguing that the stipulation should prevent any prejudice or legal error tied to a mens‑rea reading of the statute.
Barnea contrasted the present state law and precedents with federal decisions that read a different knowledge requirement into different statutes, saying those federal lines are ‘‘not the law’’ in Washington. The panel asked about prior cases cited by the parties and whether a knowledge element should be read into each element of the offense; Barnea referenced State v. Moreno and other Washington authority in that exchange.
Defense counsel stressed the theoretical point the panel raised — that a fact that makes conduct illegal might itself require proof the defendant knew that fact — but the transcript records Barnea’s contention that specific stipulations in the trial record make that concern moot for this appeal.
The transcript records argument but not the panel’s disposition on this question.
