Bell v. State
668 P.2d 829, 1983 Alas. App. LEXIS 350 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute that eliminates the mistake of age defense for a crime does not violate due process when the underlying conduct is inherently wrongful (malum in se), as the general intent to commit the wrongful act satisfies the constitutional requirement of criminal intent.
Facts:
- Willie B. Bell, a twenty-nine-year-old army sergeant, procured two sixteen-year-old girls, C.R. and M.J., and one fourteen-year-old girl, D.W., for prostitution.
- C.R. began living with Bell and engaging in prostitution after he promised to marry her and buy her new things.
- At Bell's direction, D.W. and M.J. also worked as prostitutes in May 1980.
- On May 22, 1980, Bell assaulted M.J., accusing her of drinking instead of working for him.
- Following the assault, C.R. and M.J. became fearful, left Bell, and contacted the police to report his activities.
Procedural Posture:
- Willie B. Bell was indicted in the superior court (trial court) on four counts, including promoting prostitution in the first degree by inducing a person under sixteen (D.W.) to engage in prostitution.
- At trial, Bell proposed a jury instruction for a 'reasonable mistake of age' defense, which the trial court refused to give.
- A jury convicted Bell of promoting prostitution in the first degree (Count I) and managing a prostitution enterprise (Count IV), among other lesser-included offenses.
- The superior court sentenced Bell to a five-year term with two years suspended on Count I, to run concurrently with another sentence.
- Bell, as the appellant, appealed his convictions and sentence to the Court of Appeals of Alaska.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state law that eliminates the 'mistake of age' defense for the crime of promoting prostitution of a minor under 16 years old violate the defendant's constitutional due process rights by creating an unconstitutional strict liability offense?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Bryner
No, a state law that eliminates the 'mistake of age' defense for promoting prostitution of a minor does not violate due process. The act of promoting prostitution is malum in se, meaning it is inherently wrong regardless of the victim's age, and therefore the defendant’s conscious decision to engage in this conduct satisfies the constitutional requirement for criminal intent (mens rea). The legislature may constitutionally impose strict liability for the age element of the offense because the defendant’s conduct would have been illegal even if the victim had been older. The court distinguished this from statutory rape cases like State v. Guest, where the underlying conduct (fornication) was not itself a crime, noting that Bell was necessarily guilty of a lesser prostitution offense even if the facts were as he believed them to be. Thus, dispensing with knowledge of the victim's age as an element of the aggravated offense is constitutionally permissible.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that legislatures can create strict liability for specific elements of a crime, such as the victim's age, without violating due process, provided the underlying conduct is malum in se (inherently wrong). It distinguishes between crimes where any version of the act is illegal (like promoting prostitution) and situations where the act might be legal under the defendant's mistaken belief of the facts. This ruling provides a clear framework for upholding statutes that aim to offer heightened protection to vulnerable groups, like minors, by placing the risk of mistake about age entirely on the perpetrator of an already illegal act.
