The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Hoflin, 880 F.2d 1033 (9th Cir. 1989):
On appeal from his conviction on Count II, Hoflin contends he did not know the City did not have a permit to dispose of the paint. He argues knowledge a permit was lacking is an element of the offense charged in Count II, and that failure to so instruct the jury was reversible error. "Because it is a question of law whether the district court's instructions to the jury misstated the elements of a statutory crime, we review this claim de novo." United States v. Douglass, 780 F.2d 1472, 1475 (9th Cir.1986) (citations omitted).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.