People v. Cash
351 N.W.2d 822, 419 Mich. 230 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's reasonable mistake of fact as to a complainant's age is not a valid defense to a charge of statutory rape under Michigan's third-degree criminal sexual conduct statute, which is a strict liability offense with respect to the victim's age.
Facts:
- The complainant, who was fifteen years old and one month away from her sixteenth birthday, ran away from home.
- On September 23, 1979, she met the defendant, a 30-year-old man, at a Greyhound bus station.
- The complainant told the defendant that she was 17 years old.
- The defendant described the complainant as being 5'8" tall and weighing about 165 pounds.
- The defendant drove the complainant to a motel, where two acts of sexual intercourse occurred.
- The complainant testified that she engaged in the acts voluntarily, though reluctantly, out of fear.
- After the defendant fell asleep, the complainant left the room and had the motel manager call the police.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged in trial court with two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct.
- Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion requesting a jury instruction on the defense of reasonable mistake of age, which the trial court denied.
- A jury found the defendant guilty of third-degree criminal sexual conduct.
- The trial court sentenced the defendant to a term of 5 to 15 years in prison.
- The defendant appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction in an unpublished opinion.
- The Michigan Supreme Court granted the defendant's application for leave to appeal.
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 defendant's reasonable but mistaken belief that the complainant was of the legal age of consent constitute a valid defense to a charge of third-degree criminal sexual conduct under Michigan law?
Opinions:
Majority - Williams, C.J.
No. A reasonable mistake of fact regarding the complainant's age is not a defense to third-degree criminal sexual conduct. The court reaffirms its long-standing precedent from People v. Gengels, holding that statutory rape is a strict liability offense concerning the victim's age. The court's reasoning is based on legislative intent; when the Legislature enacted the new criminal sexual conduct code, it was aware of the Gengels rule and chose not to abrogate it. This is evidenced by the Legislature's inclusion of a 'knows or has reason to know' intent requirement in other parts of the same statute (e.g., regarding mentally helpless victims), but its omission in the section dealing with underage victims. The statute's primary purpose is to protect children, who are legally incapable of consent, and the state has the police power to create such strict liability offenses to achieve this public policy goal. The defense is not constitutionally mandated, and any mitigating factors related to the defendant's belief can be considered at sentencing.
Dissenting - Kavanagh, J.
Yes. A defense based on a reasonable mistake of fact as to the victim's age should be permitted. The dissent argues that mens rea, or a criminal intent, is a fundamental and necessary ingredient of every felony in Michigan's legal tradition. Disallowing a reasonable mistake of fact defense improperly eliminates the requirement of proving a culpable mental state. The core issue is not the victim's consent but the defendant's state of mind; if a defendant, without fault, is misled about the facts and acts as he would be justified in doing if the facts were as he believed them to be, he is morally and should be legally innocent. A defendant who holds an honest and reasonable belief that the person is an adult does not possess the 'free election to do the thing forbidden' and therefore lacks the requisite mens rea for the crime.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Michigan's adherence to the majority American rule that statutory rape is a strict liability crime regarding the victim's age. By explicitly rejecting the defense of reasonable mistake, the court places the full burden of risk on the adult actor, reinforcing the state's paramount public policy of protecting minors from sexual exploitation. The ruling emphasizes legislative supremacy, noting that if such a defense were to be created, it must come from the Legislature, not the judiciary. This precedent makes it clear that a defendant's subjective belief or the victim's appearance are irrelevant to the determination of guilt, thereby simplifying prosecution but increasing the legal peril for adults engaging in sexual activity with individuals of uncertain age.
