Court Opinion

ID: 9766429
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:48:01.848381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:22.541410
License: Public Domain

ELDRIDGE, Judge,
dissenting:
Both the majority opinion and Judge Bell’s dissenting opinion view the question in this case to be whether, on the one hand, Maryland Code (1957, 1992 Repl.Vol.), Art. 27, § 463(a)(3), is entirely a strict liability statute without any mens rea requirement or, on the other hand, contains the requirement that the defendant knew that the person with whom he or she was having sexual relations was under 14 years of age.
The majority takes the position that the statute defines an entirely strict liability offense and has no mens rea requirement whatsoever. The majority indicates that the defendant’s “knowledge, belief, or other state of mind” is wholly immaterial. The majority opinion at one point states: “We acknowledge here that it is uncertain to what extent Raymond’s intellectual and social retardation may have impaired his ability to comprehend imperatives of sexual morality in any case.” Nevertheless, according to the majority, it was permissible for the trial judge to have precluded exploration into Raymond’s knowledge and comprehension because the offense is entirely one of strict liability.
Judge Bell’s dissent, however, argues that, under the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Maryland Declaration of Rights, any “defendant may defend on the basis that he was mistaken as to the age of the prosecutrix.”
*589In my view, the issue concerning a mens rea requirement in § 463(a)(3) is not limited to a choice between one of the extremes set forth in the majority’s and Judge Bell’s opinions. I agree with the majority that an ordinary defendant’s mistake about the age of his or her sexual partner is not a defense to a prosecution under § 463(a)(3). Furthermore I am not persuaded, at least at the present time, that either the federal or state constitutions require that a defendant’s honest belief that the other person was above the age of consent be a defense.1 This does not mean, however, that the statute contains no mens rea requirement at all.
The legislative history of § 463(a)(3), set forth in the majority opinion, demonstrates that the House of Delegates rejected the Senate’s proposed requirement that an older person, having sexual relations with another under 14 years of age, know or should know that the other person was under 14. The House of Delegates’ version was ultimately adopted. From this, the majority concludes that the enacted version was “without a mens rea requirement.” The majority’s conclusion does not necessarily follow. Although the General Assembly rejected one specific knowledge requirement, it did not decree that any and all evidence concerning a defendant’s knowledge and comprehension was immaterial.
There are pure strict liability offenses where “the purpose of the penalty is to regulate rather than to punish behavior” and where criminal “liability is imposed regardless of the defendant’s state of mind,” Dawkins v. State, 313 Md. 638, 645, 547 A.2d 1041 (1988). These “offenses commonly involve light fines or penalties,” Dawkins, 313 Md. at 644, 547 A.2d at 1044. There are other offenses (also unfortunately often called “strict liability” offenses) where the legislature has dispensed with a knowledge requirement in one respect but *590has not intended to impose criminal liability regardless of the defendant’s state of mind.2 Such offenses
“do require ‘fault’ ..., in that they ‘can be interpreted as legislative judgments that persons who intentionally engage in certain activities and occupy some peculiar or distinctive position of control are to be held accountable for the occurrence of certain consequences.’ ”
W. LaFave & A. Scott, Jr., Substantive Criminal Law, ch. 3, § 3.8(c), at 349 (1986), quoting Wasserstrom, Strict Criminal Liability, 12 Stan.L.Rev. 731, 743 (1960). See also P. Robinson, Criminal Law Defenses, ch. 3, § 108(b), at 535 (1984) (“If reasonable mistake as to the victim’s age is disallowed ... [tjhere is, ... strict liability with respect to that element ”) (emphasis added).
Neither the statutory language nor the legislative history of § 463(a)(3), or of the other provisions of the 1976 and 1977 sexual offense statutes, indicate that the General Assembly intended § 463(a)(3) to define a pure strict liability offense where criminal liability is imposed regardless of the defendant’s mental state. The penalty provision for a violation of § 463(a)(3), namely making the offense a felony punishable by a maximum of 20 years imprisonment (§ 463(b)), is strong evidence that the General Assembly did not intend to create a pure strict liability offense.
In the typical situation involving an older person’s engaging in consensual sexual activities with a teenager below the age of consent, and the scenario which the General Assembly likely contemplated when it enacted §§ 463(a)(3), 464A(a)(3), 464B(a)(3), 4640(a)(2), and 4640(a)(3), the defendant knows and intends that he or she is engaging in sexual activity with a young person. In addition, the defendant knows that the *591activity is regarded as immoral and/or improper by large segments of society. Moreover, the defendant is aware that “consent” by persons who are too young is ineffective. Although in a particular case the defendant may honestly but mistakenly believe, because of representations or appearances, that the other person is above the age of consent, the ordinary defendant in such case is or ought to be aware that there is a risk that the young person is not above the age of consent. As the majority opinion points out, “the traditional view [is] that those who engage in sex with young persons do so at their peril, assuming the risk that their partners are underage .... ” It seems to me that the above-mentioned knowledge factors, and particularly the mental ability to appreciate that one is taking a risk, constitute the mem rea of the offenses defined by §§ 463(a)(3), 464A(a)(3), 464B(a)(3), 4640(a)(2) and 4640(a)(3). In enacting these provisions, the General Assembly assumed that a defendant is able to appreciate the risk involved by intentionally and knowingly engaging in sexual activities with a young person. There is no indication that the General Assembly intended that criminal liability attach to one who, because of his or her mental impairment, was unable to appreciate that risk.
It is unreasonable to assume that the Legislature intended for one to be convicted under § 463(a)(3), or under any of the other statutes proscribing sexual activity with underage persons, regardless of his or her mental state. Suppose, for example, that Raymond Garnett had not had an I.Q. of 52, but rather, had been more severely mentally retarded as was the young woman involved in Wentzel v. Montgomery Gen. Hosp., 293 Md. 685, 447 A.2d 1244, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1147, 103 S.Ct. 790, 74 L.Ed.2d 995 (1983). The mentally retarded person in Wentzel had an I.Q. of 25-30, was physiologically capable of bearing a child, but was unable to comprehend the act of sexual intercourse, or even to understand the difference between the sexes. If someone so disabled, having reached Raymond’s chronological age, then had “consensual” sexual intercourse with a person younger than fourteen years of age, I do not believe that he or she would have violated Art. 27, *592§ 463(a)(3). Under the view that §§ 463(a)(3), 464A(a)(3), 464B(a)(3), etc., define pure strict liability offenses without any regard for the defendant’s mental state, presumably a 20 year old, who passes out because of drinking too many alcoholic beverages, would be guilty of a sexual offense if a 13 year old engages in various sexual activities with the 20 year old while the latter is unconscious. I cannot imagine that the General Assembly intended any such result.
An impaired mental condition may show the absence of mens rea, depending upon the circumstances. See, e.g., Simmons v. State, 313 Md. 33, 39 n. 3, 542 A.2d 1258, 1261 n. 3 (1988); Hoey v. State, 311 Md. 473, 494-495, 536 A.2d 622 (1988). In light of the defendant Garnett’s mental retardation, and its effect upon his knowledge and comprehension, he may or may not have had the requisite mens rea. As previously mentioned, the majority opinion itself acknowledges that it is uncertain to what extent Raymond’s intellectual and social retardation may have impaired his ability to comprehend standards of sexual morality. The problem in this case is that the trial judge’s view of the statute, which the majority adopts, precluded an exploration into the matter.
The majority points out that the trial court would not allow testimony that Erica and her friends had told the defendant that she was 16 years old. The trial court, however, went further. The court would not allow the defendant to testify concerning his knowledge. More importantly, the trial judge took the position that the offense proscribed by § 463(a)(3) is “a strict liability offense” and that the only requirements for conviction were that “the defendant had sexual intercourse with Erica Frazier, that at that time she was 13 years of age, [and] at that time the defendant was more than 4 years older than she. These are the only requirements that the State need prove beyond a reasonable doubt.” The trial court’s position that the offense lacked any mens rea requirement, and that the defendant’s mental state was wholly immaterial, was, in my view, erroneous.
I would reverse and remand for a new trial.

. In this connection, it should be noted that the defendant-appellant, in his opening brief in this Court, made no constitutional argument either directly or by invoking the principle of statutory construction that a statute should be construed so as to avoid a serious constitutional problem. Consequently, the State had no opportunity to brief the constitutional issue discussed in Judge Bell’s dissent.

. As pointed out by one commentator, "it can be argued that if strict liability statutes are to be characterized as 'strict' because of their failure to permit inquiry as to the defendant’s state of mind, this description is too broad. More appropriately, each criminal statute must be examined to determine in what respects it is ‘strict.’ ” Wasserstrom, Strict Criminal Liability, 12 Stan.L.Rev. 731, 742 (1960).