## Facts

- Two Michigan State Police officers assigned to the Tobacco Tax Unit conducted an administrative inspection of a convenience store managed by Ahmed Nasir.
- During the inspection, an officer discovered tobacco products offered for sale that had counterfeit Michigan tobacco tax stamps affixed to them.
- The State charged Nasir with possessing or using counterfeit tax stamps under the Michigan Tobacco Products Tax Act, MCL 205.428(6).
- The statutory provision did not expressly state that a person must act “knowingly” or “intentionally.”
- At trial, Nasir requested a jury instruction requiring the prosecution to prove he knew the stamps were counterfeit and acted with a specific intent to violate state law.
- The prosecution argued the offense was strict liability, meaning the jury could convict based only on the act of possession or use of counterfeit stamps, without any proof of knowledge.
- The trial court agreed with the prosecution, denied Nasir’s requested instruction, and instructed the jury that it needed only to find that Nasir possessed or used a counterfeit stamp without authorization from the Department of Treasury.
- The jury convicted Nasir, and the trial court sentenced him to 18 to 120 months’ imprisonment.
- Nasir appealed as of right, arguing that the trial court erred by treating MCL 205.428(6) as a strict-liability felony and by omitting a mental-state element from the jury instructions.

## Issues

1. Does MCL 205.428(6) create a strict-liability felony for possessing or using counterfeit cigarette tax stamps, or must the prosecution prove the defendant knew the stamps were counterfeit?
2. If knowledge is an element, did the trial court’s strict-liability jury instruction require reversal?

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals held that MCL 205.428(6) is not a strict-liability offense and includes an implied mens rea requirement.
- The court concluded the prosecution must prove the defendant knew the tax stamps were counterfeit (a knowledge element), rather than merely proving possession or use.
- Because the trial court instructed the jury on a strict-liability theory and refused to require proof of knowledge, the jury was not asked to decide an essential element of the offense as construed by the appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals reversed Nasir’s conviction and remanded for a new trial with proper instructions including the knowledge requirement.

## Legal Principles

- Strict-liability crimes are disfavored; absent a clear legislative statement dispensing with fault, courts generally read criminal statutes to require some culpable mental state.
- The absence of express words like “knowingly” or “intentionally” does not, by itself, show legislative intent to impose strict liability.
- In deciding whether a statute dispenses with mens rea, courts consider text, statutory context, purpose, and the severity of the penalty.
- When a statute carries serious felony punishment and the prohibited conduct can be committed by an unaware person, courts are reluctant to allow conviction without proof of knowledge because it risks punishing innocent conduct.
- A jury instruction that omits an element necessary to convict under the correct interpretation of the statute is instructional error requiring reversal when the case was tried on the wrong legal theory.

## Conclusion

People v. Nasir held that MCL 205.428(6) requires proof that the defendant knew the cigarette tax stamps were counterfeit, so the trial court erred by treating the offense as strict liability and instructing the jury without a knowledge element; the conviction was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial with corrected jury instructions.


People v. Nasir, 662 N.W.2d 29 (2003)