Garnett v. State
632 A.2d 797, 1993 Md. LEXIS 162, 332 Md. 571 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Maryland's second degree rape statute, prohibiting sexual intercourse with a person under 14 years of age, is a strict liability offense. The State is not required to prove that the defendant knew the victim was underage, and a defendant's reasonable mistake as to the victim's age is not a valid defense.
Facts:
- Raymond Lennard Garnett, a 20-year-old man with an I.Q. of 52, functioned at the intellectual and social level of an 11 or 12-year-old.
- Garnett was introduced to Erica Frazier, who was 13 years old.
- Frazier and her friends told Garnett that she was 16 years old, and he believed them.
- On February 28, 1991, at Frazier's invitation, Garnett used a ladder to climb into her bedroom window.
- Garnett and Frazier engaged in consensual sexual intercourse inside her bedroom.
- As a result of this encounter, Frazier became pregnant and later gave birth to a baby fathered by Garnett.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Maryland charged Raymond Lennard Garnett with one count of second degree rape in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, a state trial court.
- At trial, Garnett's defense counsel attempted to introduce evidence that Garnett believed the victim was 16 years old.
- The trial court judge excluded the evidence, ruling that second degree rape is a strict liability offense and the defendant's belief about the victim's age is immaterial.
- The trial court found Garnett guilty and sentenced him to a suspended five-year prison term with five years of probation.
- Garnett filed an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, Maryland's intermediate appellate court.
- Before the intermediate appellate court could hear the case, the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the state's highest court, granted a writ of certiorari to decide the issue.
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 Maryland's second degree rape statute, which prohibits sexual intercourse with a person under 14 by a person at least four years older, require the State to prove that the defendant knew the victim was underage, thereby allowing a defense based on a reasonable mistake of age?
Opinions:
Majority - Murphy, C.J.
No, Maryland's second degree rape statute does not require proof of the defendant's knowledge of the victim's age and does not permit a mistake-of-age defense. The court's reasoning is based on statutory interpretation. First, the plain language of § 463(a)(3) is silent on any mental state (mens rea), which contrasts sharply with the preceding subsection, § 463(a)(2), which explicitly includes a 'knows or should reasonably know' standard for intercourse with an incapacitated person. This difference indicates a deliberate legislative choice to make § 463(a)(3) a strict liability offense. Second, the legislative history shows that the General Assembly considered and explicitly rejected an amendment that would have added a mens rea requirement to the underage provision. The court concluded that while there are strong policy arguments against strict liability for such a serious felony, any change to the law must come from the legislature, not the judiciary.
Dissenting - Eldridge, J.
Yes, the statute contains a mens rea requirement, though not necessarily knowledge of the specific age. The majority's view that the statute imposes pure strict liability is incorrect because the severe penalty (up to 20 years in prison) is inconsistent with typical strict liability offenses, which are usually minor regulatory violations. While an ordinary defendant's mistake of age may not be a defense, the General Assembly did not intend for criminal liability to attach to someone, like Garnett, whose mental impairment prevents them from appreciating the risks involved in their conduct. The trial court erred by precluding any exploration into Garnett's mental state and his ability to comprehend the nature of his actions, as the statute assumes a defendant has the mental capacity to appreciate such risks.
Dissenting - Bell, J.
Yes, to be constitutional, the statute must be interpreted to allow a mistake-of-age defense. Imposing strict criminal liability for a serious felony like statutory rape, which carries a significant penalty and social stigma, violates the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Maryland Declaration of Rights. By making the defendant's knowledge of the victim's age irrelevant, the statute creates an unconstitutional irrebuttable presumption that anyone who has sex with a person under 14 did so with criminal intent. This relieves the state of its burden to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt and denies the defendant the fundamental right to present a defense, especially when the defendant's belief about the victim's age was reasonable.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the traditional majority view that statutory rape is a strict liability offense, placing the burden entirely on the actor to ascertain the age of their partner. The court's decision emphasizes judicial restraint, deferring to the legislature to reform criminal statutes even when faced with sympathetic facts. This ruling reinforces a bright-line rule intended to protect minors, but it also highlights the tension between that protective goal and the foundational criminal law principle of 'mens rea,' or a guilty mind. The decision limits the defenses available to defendants in Maryland and serves as a strong precedent against judicially created exceptions to strict liability crimes.
