The Ninth Circuit affirmed the defendant's conviction for a felony violation of the Lacey Act,[1] holding that a felony conviction under the Lacey Act does not require knowledge of the particular law violated by the possession of illegal wildlife, as long as the defendant knows of the unlawfulness of the act.

Joey Santillan, the owner of a tropical fish store, was prosecuted and convicted for smuggling and importing wildlife in violation of the Lacey Act. While crossing the United States-Mexico border on his way back from Tijuana, Santillan failed to declare ten baby parrots hidden under the seat of his automobile. At the time of his capture he admitted that he knew it was illegal to bring the birds into the United States.

Santillan argued that the district court erroneously instructed the jury on the mental element required under the Lacey Act. The prosecutor charged Santillan with importing wildlife in violation of a regulation that required he complete and file a declaration form.[2] In his defense, Santillan offered an interpretation of the Lacey Act that would require proof that he knew of the form requirement, in order to convict him of a felony violation. Instead, the district court instructed the jury that the prosecution only had to show that the defendant knew he was importing wildlife, and that the wildlife was "possessed" in violation of the law.

The Ninth Circuit held that "the Lacey Act does not require knowledge of the particular law violated by the possession or other predicate act, so long as the defendant knows of its unlawfulness."[3] The criminal penalty provisions of the Lacey Act create felony penalties for a "person who knowingly imports . . . wildlife . . . in violation . . . of this Act . . . knowing that the . . . wildlife [was] taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation [of the law]."[4] The Ninth Circuit first distinguished United States v. Miranda,[5] an Eleventh Circuit case that Santillan offered in support of his interpretation. The court determined that Miranda did not apply because it involved a situation where the defendant would not have known there was anything unlawful about his act. In contrast, Santillan clearly knew that his possession and importation of wildlife was unlawful.

The Ninth Circuit next examined the criminal penalty provisions of the Lacey Act and concluded that the language supported the interpretation that a person only has to know his act was violative of any law, regardless of whether the person knew which law was violated. The court explained that the mental state requirement is meant to separate wrongful conduct from "otherwise innocent conduct."[6] Therefore, achieving that objective does not require the defendant to know the exact law he violated, only that he know his conduct was unlawful.

Santillan also argued that the district court erred by not instructing the jury that they could convict him of a lesser included offense. The Lacey Act includes a felony provision and a misdemeanor provision, but the judge refused to instruct that they could find Santillan guilty of a misdemeanor. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the evidence did not leave room for the conclusion that Santillan did not know possession of the birds was illegal. As a result, the district judge did not err in failing to give the instruction.