Some crimes require proof of a suspect’s actual knowledge of something in order to convict them. For example if you are charged with possession of a firearm that is found near you in a car or home, you can only be convicted if there is proof that you actually knew about the firearm.
Another example would be the crime of possessing stolen property, which requires proof that a person actually knew that the property was stolen.
Proof of knowledge means proof of actual knowledge, not just that a person should have known or may have known something. Like any element of a criminal charge, this must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order for a person to be convicted at trial.
Actual knowledge is understandably difficult to establish beyond a reasonable doubt because it requires looking inside the mind of the suspect. There is rarely direct evidence of this that can be used, unless a person makes a statement admitting to this kind of knowledge. This is one reason why it is important to think carefully, and consult a lawyer, before making any statements to law enforcement about an alleged crime.
However, even without such an admission, actual knowledge can be inferred based on the other circumstances of the case. This is what is known as circumstantial evidence. Where knowledge is an issue in a case, challenging this evidence effectively could be an important strategy for an effective defense.
