This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant, a 20-year-old, engaged in consensual sexual activity with a 15-year-old girl who had falsely stated she was 17. The Defendant was informed by others that the girl was 17 and believed this to be true. The Defendant was charged with fourth-degree criminal sexual penetration under a statute prohibiting sexual penetration of a child aged 13 to 16 by someone at least 18 years old and at least four years older than the child.
Procedural History
- Trial Court: Convicted the Defendant of fourth-degree criminal sexual penetration, finding that the Defendant believed in good faith that the victim was 17 but holding that the statute imposed strict liability.
- Court of Appeals: Affirmed the conviction, holding that knowledge of the victim's age was not an element of the offense.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant: Argued that his reasonable mistake of fact regarding the victim's age should have been considered as a defense and that the trial court erred in treating the statute as imposing strict liability.
- State: Contended that knowledge of the victim's age was not an element of the offense and that the statute imposed strict liability, precluding a mistake of fact defense.
Legal Issues
- Whether the Defendant's reasonable mistake of fact regarding the victim's age could be raised as a defense to the charge of fourth-degree criminal sexual penetration.
- Whether the statute in question imposes strict liability, thereby precluding consideration of the Defendant's mental state.
Disposition
- The Defendant's conviction was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Reasons
Per Franchini J. (Ransom and Montgomery JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the trial court erred in refusing to consider the Defendant's mistake of fact defense. While the statute does not require the State to prove the Defendant's knowledge of the victim's age, the Court found that the legislature did not intend to impose strict liability for cases involving victims aged 13 to 16. The Court emphasized that criminal liability generally requires a mens rea, and strict liability should only apply in exceptional circumstances where public interest demands it. The Court noted that the statutory scheme distinguishes between victims under 13, where strict liability applies, and those aged 13 to 16, where additional factors are required for criminal liability. Given the Defendant's good faith belief about the victim's age, the mistake of fact defense should have been allowed.