Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Morissette v. United States Case Brief

Supreme Court of the United States1952Docket #337772
96 L. Ed. 2d 288 72 S. Ct. 240 342 U.S. 246 1952 U.S. LEXIS 2714 96 L. Ed. 288

Audio Insights: Learn Cases on The Go

Transform downtime into productive study time with our premium audio insights. Perfect for commutes, workouts, or visual breaks from reading.

Reinforces complex concepts Improves retention Multi-modal learning

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: A man took spent bomb casings from a government range, believing they were abandoned. The Supreme Court reversed his conviction for “knowing conversion,” holding that the trial court improperly eliminated the essential element of criminal intent from the jury’s consideration.

Legal Significance: This case established the foundational principle that unless Congress explicitly states otherwise, federal statutes codifying common-law crimes are presumed to include the traditional common-law requirement of criminal intent (mens rea).

Morissette v. United States Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

The defendant, Morissette, was a scrap iron collector who went deer hunting on a government practice bombing range. To offset his expenses, he openly collected three tons of spent bomb casings that were rusting in exposed piles. He believed the casings were abandoned. Morissette was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 641, which criminalizes one who “knowingly converts” government property. At trial, Morissette testified that he believed the property was abandoned and had no wrongful or criminal intent. The trial court refused to submit the question of intent to the jury, ruling that Morissette’s belief was not a defense. The court instructed the jury that the only necessary intent was the intent to take the property, which Morissette admitted, and that criminal intent was presumed from the act of taking itself. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the statute created a strict liability public welfare offense that did not require proof of criminal intent.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does a federal statute that codifies a common law larceny-type offense but is silent on the element of specific criminal intent thereby eliminate the traditional mens rea requirement for that crime?

Reversed. The Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 641 requires proof of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fu

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does a federal statute that codifies a common law larceny-type offense but is silent on the element of specific criminal intent thereby eliminate the traditional mens rea requirement for that crime?

Conclusion

This case is a cornerstone of American criminal law, establishing a strong Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis n

Legal Rule

When a federal statute is silent on the mental element required for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est labo

Legal Analysis

Justice Jackson, writing for the Court, established a crucial distinction between two Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • When a federal statute codifies a common-law crime, courts will read
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate v

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

You win some, you lose some, and some you just bill by the hour.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+