Commonwealth v. Olshefski
64 Pa. D. & C. 343, 1948 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 96 (1948)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For statutory crimes that are classified as mala prohibita (wrong because prohibited), criminal intent is not a necessary element of the offense. A defendant may be found guilty based on the commission of the prohibited act, irrespective of their knowledge or belief.
Facts:
- John Fisher, a driver for Felix Olshefski, purchased a load of coal and had it loaded onto Olshefski's truck.
- At the colliery, a licensed weighmaster weighed the truck, and the weigh slip showed a gross weight of 15,200 pounds, which was under the legal limit of 15,750 pounds.
- Fisher drove the truck to Olshefski's home and left the weigh slip in the truck's compartment.
- The next day, Olshefski saw State Police conducting truck weigh checks.
- Believing his load was legal based on the prior weigh slip, Olshefski drove the truck towards the borough scales to obtain a new slip required for a local sale.
- Before reaching the borough scales, a State Police officer stopped Olshefski.
- The officer directed Olshefski to a scale where the truck was re-weighed and found to have a gross weight of 16,015 pounds, which was 265 pounds over the legal limit.
Procedural Posture:
- A Pennsylvania State Police officer lodged an information against Felix Olshefski, charging him with violating The Vehicle Code for operating an overweight truck.
- Olshefski waived a hearing, and the matter was brought before the Court of Common Pleas of Montour County for disposition.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a defendant's mistaken belief that their vehicle's weight complies with the statutory limit, based on a prior weigh slip, a valid defense to a charge of violating The Vehicle Code's weight restrictions?
Opinions:
Majority - Kreisher, P. J.
No. A defendant's mistaken belief of compliance is not a valid defense for violating a strict liability public welfare statute. The court distinguishes between crimes mala in se, which are inherently evil and require a mental element (intent), and crimes mala prohibita, which are wrong merely because a statute makes them so. The Vehicle Code's weight restriction is a mala prohibita offense, designed for public safety. For such offenses, the legislature has the power to omit the requirement of criminal intent. The only element necessary for conviction is the commission of the prohibited act—in this case, operating an overweight vehicle. The court's duty is to enforce the statute as written, regardless of the defendant's intent or the perceived harshness of the outcome.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the legal doctrine of strict liability for public welfare offenses. It establishes that for certain regulatory crimes designed to protect public safety, the traditional requirement of mens rea (a guilty mind) is not necessary for a conviction. This precedent significantly lowers the burden of proof for the prosecution in such cases, as they only need to prove the defendant committed the prohibited act. The decision places the responsibility squarely on individuals and businesses engaged in regulated activities to ensure absolute compliance, as an honest mistake or lack of knowledge does not serve as a defense.
Unlock the full brief for Commonwealth v. Olshefski