CL Strict Liability Flashcards
Morissette v US (1952)
Strict liability carve out - crimes that historically have had intent element
Facts: D takes some scrap metal from Air force trash heaps. D convicted of larceny under strict liability statute with no mens rea element. D appeals.
Rule: Strict-liability statutes governing a class of crimes that courts in the U.S. broadly rule require intent will not be construed as eliminating the mens rea element.
Holding: D wins because there is an implied mens rea element in the statute because larceny is an old crime that historically has a mens rea element.
Elonis v US (2015)
Facts: D and his wife split up. D posts rap lyrics with violent threats toward wife, coworkers, and law enforcement. D charged under extortion statute with no mens rea element.
Rule: Criminal statutes generally include a requirement that a person is aware that he or she is committing a crime, even if the statute does not explicitly contain such a mens rea requirement.
Holding: D wins because the statute implicitly includes a requirement that the person know that what they’re doing is illegal. The lower court used a reasonable person standard to convict D, which is a lower standard than “knowingly.” (reasonable person is closer to MPC “negligently”)
Commonwealth v Barone (1980)
Facts: D is hit by a motorcycle and the cyclist dies. D charged under statute that makes unintentional vehicular homicide a first-degree misdemeanor.
Rule: A state criminal law with a harsh sentence imposing a conviction for homicide for unintentionally causing the death of another during the commission of a violation of traffic laws shall not be interpreted as a strict-liability offense.
Holding: D wins because a statute with harsh punishments for an unintentional killing shall not be considered a strict-liability offense. Traditionally, statutes that use the term “homicide” require a showing of a voluntary act.
Bell v State (1983)
Facts: D was promoting prostitution of minors. Charged with base crime of promoting prostitution, and charge aggravated by the strict liability crime of promoting prostitution of minors. Trial court refused to instruct jury on mistake of age defense.
Rule: The statute criminalizing promotion of prostitution need not provide for mistake of age defense–does not violate DPC because requisite mens rea proven in underlying crime.
Holding: D not entitled to mistake of age defense where statute expressly precludes it to create strict liability
