United States v. Olson, No. 15-30022 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseTo secure a conviction for misprision of felony under 18 U.S.C. 4, the government must prove not only that the defendant knew the principal engaged in conduct that satisfies the essential elements of the underlying felony, but also that the defendant knew the conduct was a felony. In this case, defendant was convicted of misprision of felony based on her acts of concealing and failing to notify authorities of her business partner's submission of false statements to the USDA in connection with a federal grant application. The Ninth Circuit held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that defendant had the requisite knowledge that her business partner's crime was punishable by more than a year in custody.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed the defendant’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 4 (misprision of felony) for concealing and failing to notify authorities of her business partner’s submission of false statements to the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development Program in connection with a federal grant application. The panel held that, to secure a conviction under § 4, the government must prove not only that the defendant knew the principal engaged in conduct that satisfies the essential elements of the underlying felony, but also that the defendant knew the conduct was a felony; that to establish the latter, the government must prove the defendant knew the offense was punishable by death or a term of imprisonment exceeding one year; and that sufficient evidence supports the jury’s finding that the defendant here knew the principal’s crime was punishable by more than a year in custody. Concurring in part and concurring in the result, Judge Hurwitz would leave to another day, in a case in which it matters to the outcome, whether the government must prove in a § 4 prosecution that the defendant knew the underlying offense was a felony. UNITED STATES V. OLSON 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.