Case BriefCrim law, sexual offenses, statutory rapeHughes 3/7/15Identity of CaseGarnett v. State, Maryland 1993Summary of Facts/Procedural HistoryMD’s statutory rape law: vaginal intercourse with another person who is under 14 years of age and the person performing the act is at least four years older than the victim. Victim, a 13 year old girl, is introduced to defendant, a 20 year old man with an IQ of 53 and the social abilities of approximately a 12 year old. He is in her neighborhood stranded and comes to her house to ask for a ride, she tells him to climb the ladder into her room, they spend 5 hours together talking and having sex, 9 months later she has his baby and the prosecution begins. Defendant challenges the validity of the law/conviction because the prosecutor did not show mens rea. Wants a mistake of fact defense (which is available in some states).Statement of the IssueIs there a mens rea requirement for statutory rape in Maryland, and/or is a mistake of fact defense allowed? HoldingThe legislature clearly intended this to be a strict liability offense, therefor mistake of fact is not a valid excuse, there really is no valid excuse (not even his disabilities). ReasoningAlthough the court weighs the values of mistake of fact defenses and mens rea requirements, it declines to apply them where the law leaves no room for them. Prefers to leave this matter to the legislature. Evaluation What about the fact that the perpetrator had an IQ of 53? It is also rape to engage in vaginal intercourse with another person who is mentally defective, incapacitated, or physically helpless, when the person performing the act knows or should reasonably know that fact. Obviously it doesn’t make much sense to prosecute a 13 year old girl for raping the 20 year old man when we say that she can’t consent to sex herself. Why doesn’t the same theory apply to him? Probably the strict liability v. mens rea aspect…and pressure on the prosecutor from her
View Full Document
Unlocking...