People v. Hernandez
61 Cal.2d 529, 39 Cal.Rptr. 361, 393 P.2d 673 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's good faith, reasonable belief that the victim was over the age of consent is a valid defense to a charge of statutory rape, as criminal intent is an essential element of the crime.
Facts:
- The defendant and the prosecuting witness were companions for several months prior to January 3, 1961.
- The defendant and the prosecuting witness were not married.
- On January 3, 1961, the prosecuting witness voluntarily engaged in an act of sexual intercourse with the defendant.
- At the time of the act, the prosecuting witness was 17 years and 9 months old, three months short of the legal age of consent of 18.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged by information with statutory rape.
- He entered a plea of not guilty and was tried by a court of first instance, sitting without a jury.
- At trial, the court refused to allow the defendant to present evidence showing he had a good faith, reasonable belief that the prosecutrix was 18 years of age or older.
- The trial court found the defendant guilty as charged, determining the offense to be a misdemeanor.
- The defendant (appellant) appealed the conviction, arguing the trial court erred in excluding his proffered evidence.
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 and good faith belief that the prosecutrix was over the age of 18 constitute a valid defense to a charge of statutory rape?
Opinions:
Majority - Peek, J.
Yes. A charge of statutory rape is defensible when a criminal intent is lacking, which occurs if the defendant held a reasonable and good faith belief that the victim was of the age of consent. The court reasoned that Penal Code section 20 requires a 'joint operation of act and intent' for a crime to occur. The prior rule, established in People v. Ratz, treated statutory rape as a strict liability crime, which is inconsistent with the principle of mens rea (guilty mind). Following the logic of People v. Vogel, which allowed a good faith mistake defense in bigamy cases, the court concluded that a person who acts with a reasonable belief that their conduct is lawful lacks the criminal intent necessary for a conviction. To punish an individual who has been misled despite having reasonable grounds for their belief would be to punish the 'morally innocent' alongside the guilty.
Analysis:
This decision marked a significant departure from the long-standing legal doctrine that statutory rape is a strict liability offense in California. By overruling the 1896 case of People v. Ratz, the court established that mens rea, or criminal intent, is a necessary element of the crime. This ruling created a new affirmative defense based on a reasonable mistake of fact, shifting the legal landscape for such cases. Consequently, prosecutors must now be prepared to rebut a defendant's claim of reasonable belief, and defendants have a new avenue to challenge charges, particularly in cases where the victim's age is not immediately obvious.
