In United States v. Hernandez, --- F.3d ---, No. 14-50214, the Court reversed the defendant's conviction for transportation of firearms into his state of residence in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3), and remanded for a new trial.
The case is all about the statute's willfulness requirement. The defendant argued for a heightened willfulness requirement under which the government would have to prove he knew of the specific legal duty he violated.
The Ninth rejected this argument, holding "the government was required to
show that [the defendant] knew his transportation of firearms into
California was somehow unlawful, even if he did not know of
the specific legal duty, or the particular law, that made it
unlawful."
Nevertheless, the conviction could not stand because the district court gave an unduly broad willfulness instruction that, combined with 404(b) evidence, "could
have been misunderstood by the jury to permit conviction
even if Hernandez intended to commit some later crime."
The Court explained: "What is critical, however, is
the distinction between proof of the intent to commit the
other uncharged crimes and proof of the intent to commit the
charged crime: evidence tending to show intent to commit
other crimes may be circumstantial evidence of intent to
commit the charged crime, but it is not a substitute for it."
