Robinson v. California – it is not a crime to simply be addicted to something. Cannot hold someone liable for possible intent of doing something illegal. Cannot punish someone for having a disease. Criminal act must be voluntary.

Pottinger v. City of Miami – is cruel and unusual punishment to punish someone for doing the daily acts of living in public that are a part of being homeless. People who are homeless did not choose to be homeless (most).

Johnson v. State – the heroin addict mother who may have passed residue of the drug to her child during birth is not at fault. There was no delivery of the drug as defined in the Florida statute. No person to person delivery. Legislature never intended for that statute to apply to cases such as this.

Commonwealth v. Keller – indecent disposal of a dead body. Common law provided for this. ????????????

Keeler v. Superior Court – the Legislature did not intend for a fetus to be a viable human being within the California statute defining murder. Petitioner can not be held to answer for murder because this is not what the Legislature intended. Murder applies only to the unlawful and malicious killing of one who has been born alive.

United States v. Balint – legislative intent must be examined in deciding how to apply statutes.

United States v. Dotterweich – although D may not have had any evil intent, he still violated the intent of the statute as written by the legislature. Must be held guilty. The innocent and helpless public must be protected. The seller should have known the laws.

Morissette v. United States – junk dealer took air force property and sold it. Violated a statute which made it a crime to knowingly convert government property. Morissette’s conviction was reversed. This "crime" consisted only of forbidden acts or omissions. Will not extended intent to this type of crime. The omission of intent (in the statute) will not be construed as eliminating that element from the crimes denounced.