Discussion
18 U.S.C. ยง 2119 requires intent to cause a result, but actual occurrence of the result is not an element of the offense of carjacking. It is clear that the government prosecution, to establish a carjacking charge, must prove that a defendant acted with the "intent to cause" death or harm. There is no requirement that this intent had to have actually resulted to complete the elements for the carjacking offense. Rather, the substantive harm that must result is the taking of a motor vehicle, by force and violence or by intimidation, from the person or in the presence of the victim. Therefore, the intent necessary to commit a carjacking is a conditional intent. The defendant does not have to indicate a desire to injure the victim if the jury can infer that, if the victim had refused to give up his car, the carjacker would have harmed him.
The Court's conclusion is also supported by another consideration. The defendant's interpretation of the statute would remove from the statute any coverage of the conduct that Congress specifically intended to prohibit. It can be assumed that Congress was familiar with the leading opinions and court cases regarding the need for allowing specific intent to commit a wrongful act to be conditional under certain conditions.
Read more about this topic: Holloway V. United States
Famous quotes containing the word discussion:
“There exist few things more tedious than a discussion of general ideas inflicted by author or reader upon a work of fiction.”
—Vladimir Nabokov (1899–1977)
“Bigotry is the disease of ignorance, of morbid minds; enthusiasm of the free and buoyant. Education and free discussion are the antidotes of both.”
—Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826)
“We cannot set aside an hour for discussion with our children and hope that it will be a time of deep encounter. The special moments of intimacy are more likely to happen while baking a cake together, or playing hide and seek, or just sitting in the waiting room of the orthodontist.”
—Neil Kurshan (20th century)