State v. Kargar

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
679 A.2d 81 (1996)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A court may dismiss a criminal prosecution under a de minimis statute when a defendant's conduct, while technically falling within the definition of a crime, presents such extenuating circumstances that it cannot reasonably be regarded as having been envisioned by the legislature when it defined the crime.

Facts:

Mohammad Kargar, a refugee from Afghanistan, was babysitting a young neighbor with his family.
The neighbor witnessed Kargar kissing his eighteen-month-old son's penis.
The neighbor informed her mother, who had previously seen a photograph of Kargar doing the same act in the Kargar family photo album.
The neighbor's mother notified the police about the incident.
During a search of Kargar's apartment, police found the photograph of Kargar kissing his son's penis.
Kargar admitted to the act and explained to police that it is an accepted and common cultural practice in Afghanistan to show love for a young son, and that it is not sexual in nature.

Procedural Posture:

Mohammad Kargar was charged in Superior Court (Cumberland County) with two counts of gross sexual assault.
Prior to his jury-waived trial, Kargar filed a motion to dismiss the charges pursuant to the de minimis statute.
The trial court held the trial first, followed by a hearing on the de minimis motion, where Kargar presented evidence about his cultural practices.
The trial court found Kargar guilty of two counts of gross sexual assault and denied his motion to dismiss.
Kargar (appellant) appealed the convictions to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, arguing the trial court erred in denying his de minimis motion.

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 conduct, which technically violates a gross sexual assault statute but is proven to be a non-sexual cultural practice performed without harmful intent, present such extenuating circumstances that it was not envisioned by the legislature, thus warranting dismissal under the de minimis statute?

Opinions:

Majority - Dana, J.

Yes, a prosecution may be dismissed when the conduct presents extenuating circumstances not envisioned by the legislature. The trial court erred as a matter of law by finding Kargar's culture, lack of harm, and innocent state of mind irrelevant to its de minimis analysis. The purpose of the de minimis statute is to provide a 'safety valve' for cases where a literal application of a criminal statute would lead to an unjust or 'intolerable' result. The focus is not on whether the conduct meets the statutory definition of the crime, but on whether the legislature envisioned criminalizing such specific conduct with its attendant circumstances. Here, the legislature removed the 'sexual gratification' element from the gross sexual assault statute because it could not conceive of an 'innocent' mouth-to-genital contact with a child. This case presents that exact unforeseen 'innocent' contact, supported by undisputed evidence that Kargar's act was a cultural expression of love with no sexual component, no victim impact, and no harm. Therefore, the conviction must be vacated to avoid an injustice.

Analysis:

This decision establishes that cultural context and a defendant's non-culpable state of mind are relevant factors in a de minimis analysis, particularly under provisions concerning conduct not envisioned by the legislature. It reinforces the role of de minimis statutes as a judicial 'safety valve' to prevent disproportionate and unjust outcomes in exceptional cases where conduct technically violates a strict-liability criminal law. The ruling cautions that while a specific act may be criminalized, courts must perform a case-specific analysis to determine if the unique extenuating circumstances fall outside the scope of harm the legislature intended to prevent. This precedent allows for a nuanced application of criminal law, especially in multicultural societies where traditional practices may conflict with the literal text of a statute.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. Kargar (1996)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"