United States v. Feola

Supreme Court of the United States · 1975 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawConspiracyFederal officer assaultMens reaFederal jurisdiction18 U.S.C. § 11118 U.S.C. § 371federal officer

Facts

Feola and his associates arranged a heroin sale that was actually a planned narcotics rip-off: they intended either to pass sugar as heroin or to surprise the buyers and steal their cash. The buyers turned out to be undercover agents of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. When the plan unraveled, the agents were assaulted, and Feola and others were charged with both assaulting federal officers and conspiring to do so. At trial, the jury was instructed that it need not find the defendants knew the victims were federal agents.

Issue

Must the Government prove that defendants knew their intended victim was a federal officer in order to convict them of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 to violate 18 U.S.C. § 111? Relatedly, does § 111 itself require knowledge of the victim's federal status?

Rule

For a substantive offense under 18 U.S.C. § 111, the Government need prove only an intent to commit the prohibited assaultive acts, not knowledge that the victim is a federal officer. Likewise, where knowledge of the facts giving rise to federal jurisdiction is not necessary for conviction of the substantive offense, such knowledge is generally irrelevant to liability for conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 to commit that offense. Knowledge may still be relevant where ignorance of official status negates mens rea, or where in an unfulfilled conspiracy it is necessary to establish that the agreement posed a sufficient threat to a specifically identifiable federal officer to support federal jurisdiction.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Leo Martin arranged to mug a man he believed was a cash-heavy gambler leaving a warehouse district. When the man approached, Leo shoved him and swung at him to steal his envelope; the target was actually an undercover federal narcotics agent on duty, though dressed in street clothes and never identified himself beforehand.

If Leo is charged with the substantive federal offense of assaulting a federal officer, what must the government prove regarding Leo's knowledge of the victim's status?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, § 111 requires criminal intent to do the prohibited assaultive acts, but not knowledge that the victim is a federal officer. The victim's federal status functions as the fact establishing the federal interest and forum, and the assailant takes the victim as he finds him when the conduct itself is inherently wrongful.