Instruction 3.140, Criminal Model Jury Instructions for Use in the District Court

KNOWLEDGE

I have already instructed you that one of the things the

Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that at the time

of the offense the defendant knew that _________________ .

This requires you to make a decision about the defendant’s state of

mind at that time. It is obviously impossible to look directly into a person’s

mind. But in our everyday affairs, we often look to the actions of others in

order to decide what their state of mind is. In this case, you may examine

the defendant’s actions and words, and all of the surrounding

circumstances, to help you determine the extent of the defendant’s

knowledge at that time.

You should consider all of the evidence, and any reasonable

inferences you draw from the evidence, in determining whether the

Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as it must, that the

defendant acted with the knowledge that ______________ .

Commonwealth v. Buckley, 354 Mass. 508, 512, 238 N.E.2d 335, 338 (1968); Commonwealth v.

Holiday, 349 Mass. 126, 128, 206 N.E.2d 691, 693 (1965); Commonwealth v. Settipane, 5 Mass. App.

Ct. 648, 651, 368 N.E.2d 1213, 1216 (1977). “Knowledge” commonly means “a perception of the

facts requisite to make up the crime.” Commonwealth v. Horsfall, 213 Mass. 232, 237, 100 N.E. 362,

364 (1913).

SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS

1. Example: contraband in plain view. For example, when

contraband is found in open view in an area over which a person

has control, it may be reasonable to infer that the person knew

that it was there.

Commonwealth v. Albano, 373 Mass. 132, 135, 365 N.E.2d 808, 811 (1977).

2. Knowledge must be personal. As I have indicated, you may look

to all the circumstances to help you draw reasonable inferences

about what the defendant knew. However, I emphasize that, in

the end, you must determine, not what a reasonable person

would have known, but what this particular defendant actually

did or did not know at the time.

Commonwealth v. Boris, 317 Mass. 309, 315, 58 N.E.2d 8, 12 (1944).

3. Knowledge of law not required. The requirement that the

defendant’s act must have been done “knowingly” to be a

criminal offense means that it must have been done voluntarily

and intentionally, and not because of mistake, accident,

negligence or other innocent reason. But it is not necessary

that the defendant have known that there is a law that makes it a

crime to __________ , since generally ignorance of the law is not

an excuse for violating the law.

Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 149, 114 S.Ct. 655, 663 (1994); Cheek v.

United States, 498 U.S. 192, 199, 111 S.Ct. 604, 609 (1991); Barlow v. United

States, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 404, 410-412 (1833).