Opinion ID: 2184630
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Instruction on mistake as to complainant's age.

Text: Defendant contends that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that mistake as to the complainant's age (actually seventeen years old here) was no defense to the crime charged, and further, that the trial court should have instructed that mistake was such a defense. As was the case with the supplementary instruction just discussed, the record discloses no actual objection to this instruction, nor any request by defendant that the court give the instruction here urged by defendant as proper. However, in the trial court's decision on motions after verdict, the court made the following statement with respect to defendant's motions:  Court: . . . Some you and I and Mr. Somers considered during the course of the trial, such as the question of whether mistake as to age is a defense; and I have already determined that it is not. Hence, it appears that the issue was raised at trial, even though there was no objection entered in the record. Given the trial court's ruling, defendant probably was foreclosed from submitting an instruction. We therefore conclude that there was no waiver and the question can be raised here. However, we also conclude that there is no merit to defendant's contentions on the matter. Clearly the trial court did not err in giving the instruction as it did. The statutes expressly state that mistake as to the age of a minor shall be no defense. As pertinent, sec. 939.43, Stats., provides: (2) A mistake as to the age of a minor . . . is not a defense. Further, sec. 939.23, dealing with criminal intent expressly provides: (6) Criminal intent does not require proof of knowledge of the age of a minor even though age is a material element in the crime in question. Nor does sec. 944.10 require a specific intent; hence none need be proved. [15] There is no question that the view expressed in the statutes is held in nearly all jurisdictions. [16] Only one jurisdiction, California, has held otherwise. [17] In doing so, however, the California court expressly noted that the California legislature had not precluded it from doing so: . . . We hold only that, in the absence of a legislative direction otherwise, a charge of statutory rape is defensible wherein a criminal intent is lacking. [18] No other court has seen fit to follow Hernandez, and at least seven jurisdictions have expressly refused to do so. [19] The legislative role in this matter is universally accepted. Two states have enacted statutes making mistake as to age a defense to the crime of statutory rape. [20] The Model Penal Code suggests that the defense be available whenever the critical age is other than ten years or below. [21] This is a matter which has been determined by the legislature and is for them to determine. Our legislature not only has not adopted the minority view, but has expressly stated, in two places in the statutes, that this defense shall not be available. That decides the matter.