Opinion ID: 1124484
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hazelwood's conduct/circumstances distinction

Text: Hazelwood distinguishes Rice and Guest on the ground that in each the negligence standard was applied only to the circumstances of the crime, not the underlying conduct. Due process, he maintains, still requires the government to demonstrate there was volitional conduct of the prohibited act. Hazelwood's conduct/circumstances distinction is untenable. As an initial matter, we note that nowhere do our due process precedents differentiate between the minimum mens rea for circumstances and conduct. Nor is there any reason to do so. In many cases, it is only the circumstances of the offense that render it objectionable. No one would suggest, for example, that Rice's transportation of game would still have been criminally sanctionable had it not been taken illegally. The statute proscribes the underlying conduct only when the relevant circumstance is present. The same was true in Guest. Indeed, in both cases, had we not applied a negligence standard to the circumstance of the offense, it would have included no mens rea element whatsoever. We think Hazelwood confuses volition with intent. While many crimes do not require that their underlying action be carried out with a guilty mind, it is always a defense to prosecution that the conduct was not voluntary. In every case, the alleged infraction must have been the product of a free will, and not coercion, duress, or mental illness. Had terrorists boarded the Exxon Valdez, for example, and demanded that Hazelwood run his vessel onto Bligh Reef, the fact that he did so even with knowledge and purpose would be irrelevant. He could defend on the basis that his act was not voluntary, and thus could not be properly attributed to him. This is not the case here. Hazelwood faced no compulsion that would excuse his conduct at the time the Exxon Valdez rammed into Bligh Reef. While there is a voluntariness element to every criminal offense, because Hazelwood's commissions were his and his alone, this prerequisite is satisfied here. [6] As noted above, it is firmly established in our jurisprudence that a mental state of simple or ordinary negligence can support a criminal conviction. Further decisions reveal, however, that in some situations more will be required, and sometimes less. Speidel, 460 P.2d at 80, found a denial of due process where the defendant had been convicted of simple neglectful or negligent failure to return a rented automobile. In that case, we insisted on at least a finding of reckless culpability in order for criminal sanctions to be imposed. On the other hand, elsewhere we have allowed the mens rea element to be dispensed with entirely. We have allowed strict liability to be read into public welfare offenses. See, e.g., Rice, 626 P.2d at 107. These public welfare offenses are proscriptions which heighten the duties of those in control of particular industries, trades, properties or activities that affect public health, safety or welfare. Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 254, 72 S.Ct. 240, 245, 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952). See also Haxforth v. Idaho, 117 Idaho 189, 786 P.2d 580, 582 (App. 1990) (four-part test). As a corollary, a mens rea requirement is imputed only when a serious penalty attaches. See Guest, 583 P.2d at 838; Kimoktoak, 584 P.2d at 29; and Speidel, 460 P.2d at 80; see also People v. Olson, 181 Mich. App. 348, 448 N.W.2d 845, 847 (1989). Also, no mental element will be required when a statute provides clear legislative intent to the contrary. Rice, 626 P.2d at 108; see also Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 228, 78 S.Ct. 240, 242-43, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (There is wide latitude in the lawmakers to declare an offense and to exclude elements of knowledge and diligence from its definition.); cf. Gregory v. State, 717 P.2d 428, 430 (Alaska App. 1986). An explanation of why the simple or ordinary negligence standard is nevertheless appropriate in this case requires consideration of the reasons that variable levels of mens rea will satisfy due process for different offenses.