People v. Olsen
36 Cal.3d 638, 685 P.2d 52, 205 Cal. Rptr. 492 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's good faith, reasonable mistake about a victim's age is not a defense to a charge of lewd or lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 14 (Penal Code § 288(a)), as the offense is a strict liability crime with respect to the victim's age.
Facts:
- Shawn M., who was 13 years and 10 months old, was sleeping in her family's camper trailer, which was parked in their driveway.
- Shawn M. had previously told both Edward Olsen and his companion, James Garcia, that she was over 16 years old.
- Shawn M. also admitted that she looked as if she were over 16.
- Olsen and Garcia entered the trailer during the night.
- While inside the trailer, Olsen engaged in sexual intercourse with Shawn M.
- Shawn M.'s father was awakened by barking dogs, discovered Olsen, Garcia, and his daughter in the trailer, and confronted them.
- A physical altercation ensued, during which Garcia stabbed Mr. M., allowing both Olsen and Garcia to escape.
Procedural Posture:
- Edward Olsen was charged in a California superior court (trial court) with lewd or lascivious conduct with a child under 14, in violation of Penal Code § 288(a), among other offenses.
- Olsen waived his right to a jury trial.
- The trial court rejected the defense's argument that a good faith, reasonable mistake as to the victim's age was a valid defense.
- The trial court found Olsen guilty of violating § 288(a) and sentenced him to three years in state prison.
- Olsen appealed the judgment of conviction.
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 good faith and reasonable belief that the victim was 14 years of age or older constitute a valid defense to a charge of lewd or lascivious conduct with a child under 14, in violation of Penal Code § 288(a)?
Opinions:
Majority - Bird, C. J.
No. A reasonable mistake as to the victim’s age is not a defense to a charge under Penal Code § 288(a). The court reasoned that there is a strong public policy to protect children of 'tender years' (under 14), which outweighs the defendant's mental state regarding age. This conclusion distinguishes the present case from People v. Hernandez, which allowed a mistake-of-age defense for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under 18, with the Hernandez court itself cautioning against applying the defense to victims of 'tender years.' The legislature's intent is clear from its enactment of a separate statute (§ 1203.066) that makes a reasonable belief about age a factor for probation eligibility, which would be superfluous if it were a complete defense to the crime itself. The significantly harsher penalties for § 288 violations further indicate that the legislature intended for defendants to act at their peril when engaging in such conduct.
Concurring - Grodin, J.
No. The judge concurred that a reasonable mistake of age is not a defense but wrote separately to express constitutional concerns. He agreed that the legislature's enactment of the probation statute (§ 1203.066) shows a clear intent to disallow mistake of age as a defense to the charge itself. However, he argued that imposing a prison sentence on a defendant who held an honest and reasonable belief about the victim's age, and was otherwise not morally blameworthy, could constitute cruel or unusual punishment. He reasoned that serious criminal sanctions should not be imposed without proof of fault (mens rea), and while the belief is not a defense to conviction, it should be a critical factor at sentencing that could make imprisonment unconstitutional.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies that certain sex offenses against very young children in California are strict liability crimes with respect to the age element, meaning the defendant's mental state about the victim's age is irrelevant to guilt. It carves out a significant exception to the general principle established in People v. Hernandez, which allowed for a mistake-of-age defense in statutory rape cases involving older minors. The ruling reinforces the state's paramount public policy of protecting children of 'tender years' and places a heavy burden on individuals to be absolutely certain of a person's age before engaging in sexual conduct, as a reasonable mistake will not absolve them of criminal liability for this specific offense. This case is crucial for understanding the limits of mens rea defenses in the context of sex crimes against children.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Olsen