Garnett v. State case brief summary
632 A.2d 797 (1993)
CASE FACTS
Defendant was a 20-year old young retarded male who previously met the victim, who was 13 years old, and talked with her occasionally by telephone. He approached the victim's house, and she opened her bedroom window and directed him to use a ladder to climb up the window. The two talked, engaged in sexual intercourse, and remained in the bedroom for more than seven hours before defendant departed therefrom. Defendant alleged that the victim previously represented that she was 16 years old and that he had acted with such belief, and there was no mens rea and reasonable mistake of fact; the state alleged that Md. Code Ann. Article 27, § 463(a)(3) was a strict liability offense.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment of conviction because defendant could not make a mistake of fact defense to a strict liability offense.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law
632 A.2d 797 (1993)
CASE SYNOPSIS
The Circuit Court for Montgomery County
(Maryland) convicted defendant for second-degree rape of a victim in
violation of Md. Code Ann. Article 27, § 463(1957, 1992 repl.
vol.) and excluded as immaterial evidence that defendant was told the
victim was at the age of consent. Defendant appealed.CASE FACTS
Defendant was a 20-year old young retarded male who previously met the victim, who was 13 years old, and talked with her occasionally by telephone. He approached the victim's house, and she opened her bedroom window and directed him to use a ladder to climb up the window. The two talked, engaged in sexual intercourse, and remained in the bedroom for more than seven hours before defendant departed therefrom. Defendant alleged that the victim previously represented that she was 16 years old and that he had acted with such belief, and there was no mens rea and reasonable mistake of fact; the state alleged that Md. Code Ann. Article 27, § 463(a)(3) was a strict liability offense.
DISCUSSION
- The court held:
- (1) the second degree rape statute, § 463(a)(3), was a strict liability offense that did not require the state to prove mens rea;
- (2) as such, defendant was guilty of the second degree rape by engaging in sexual intercourse with the victim, who was under fourteen years of age and four years his junior; and
- (3) the mistake-of-age defense was not allowable under § 463(a)(3), which made no reference to defendant's knowledge, belief, or other state of mind.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment of conviction because defendant could not make a mistake of fact defense to a strict liability offense.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law
No comments:
Post a Comment