Court Opinion

ID: 9742404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:13:07.099715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:32.310597
License: Public Domain

Opinion Concurring in Part — Dissenting in Part
Prentice, J.
I concur in the opinion of the majority except insofar as it announces a concept of a rebuttable presumption *484arising from the trial judge talcing judicial notice. This approach would leave the litigants in a quandary as to if and when such notice has been taken and as to where the “burden of producing evidence” lies. Assuming that sex is a legitimate basis for legislative classification with respect to the commercialization of sexual activity (a proposition which I accept only with considerable difficulty) in the absence of a special plea or the presentation of some evidence that the defendant’s sex is other than that alleged in the affidavit or indictment, it is absurd, to me, to require the State to offer evidence upon the issue. I liken it to the condition of sanity, without which there can be no intent to commit a crime requiring mens rea. Upon a charge of such a crime, the State is not required to prove the defendant’s sanity, unless the defendant places the matter in issue. I would treat the matter of proof of sex in such cases in the same manner.
I would grant transfer and affirm the judgment of the trial court.