California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Seo, 262 Cal.Rptr.3d 497, 48 Cal.App.5th 1081 (Cal. App. 2020):
it was not necessary to differentiate between general intent and specific intent as these concepts had not yet been fully developed. (See People v. Hood (1969) 1 Cal.3d 444, 457, 82 Cal.Rptr. 618, 462 P.2d 370 [in 1872 " specific and general intent were not yet terms of art"].) Based on since-established principles, it is clear that the offense of possession of counterfeiting equipment is a general intent crime that requires the specific mental state of knowledge, as discussed ante.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.