State v. Yanez
716 A.2d 759 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
First-degree child-molestation sexual assault is a strict liability offense with respect to the victim's age. A defendant's reasonable mistake of fact concerning the complainant's age is not a valid defense to this charge.
Facts:
- In August 1992, Alejandro Yanez, age eighteen, was briefly introduced to Allison, who was twelve years old at the time.
- For the next eleven months, the two had minimal contact, occasionally saying hello when passing each other.
- In mid-July 1993, Yanez saw Allison, now thirteen, walking and offered her a ride, which she accepted. They exchanged phone numbers and spoke on the phone that night.
- The following day, Yanez and Allison arranged to meet and went for a drive in Yanez's car.
- They proceeded to the home of a friend of Yanez's, where they engaged in consensual sexual intercourse.
- Yanez later claimed that Allison had told him she was sixteen years old.
- Allison testified that on the few occasions Yanez asked about her age, she truthfully responded that she was thirteen.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Rhode Island indicted Alejandro Yanez in Superior Court on one count of first-degree child-molestation sexual assault.
- At trial, Yanez sought to introduce evidence that he reasonably believed the victim was sixteen years old, but the trial justice excluded this evidence.
- The trial justice also declined to provide the jury with an instruction on the defense of mistake of fact regarding the victim's age.
- The trial justice instructed the jury that a defendant's ignorance or mistaken belief as to a victim's age is not a defense to the charge.
- A Superior Court jury returned a guilty verdict.
- The trial justice sentenced Yanez to the statutory minimum of twenty years, with eighteen years suspended and probation.
- Yanez appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, arguing the trial court erred by not allowing the mistake-of-age defense.
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 mistake of fact regarding a complainant's age constitute a valid defense to a charge of first-degree child-molestation sexual assault under Rhode Island law?
Opinions:
Majority - Goldberg, Justice
No. A reasonable mistake of fact regarding a complainant's age does not constitute a valid defense to a charge of first-degree child-molestation sexual assault because the age element of the offense is a matter of strict liability. The court's reasoning is based on several factors. First, the plain language of the child-molestation statute (§ 11-37-8.1) makes no reference to the actor’s state of mind or knowledge of the victim's age, indicating legislative design rather than omission. Second, the legislature explicitly included mens rea requirements in other adult sexual assault statutes but omitted them from child-molestation statutes, demonstrating an intentional choice to create a strict liability offense to protect minors. Third, while prior cases like State v. Griffith implied a mens rea for the act of 'sexual penetration' to distinguish innocent touching, that reasoning does not extend to the separate element of the victim’s age, as sexual intercourse is not an ambiguous or potentially innocent act. Finally, historical precedent and public policy support this interpretation, as the purpose of statutory rape laws is to protect a class of vulnerable individuals, and allowing a mistake-of-age defense would undermine that protection.
Dissenting - Flanders, Justice
Yes. A defendant should be allowed to assert a defense based on a reasonable and good-faith mistake concerning the age of his consenting sexual partner. The majority's decision to impose strict liability for a felony with a mandatory minimum twenty-year sentence violates the fundamental criminal law principle that a crime requires a 'mens rea,' or guilty mind. This holding contradicts recent court precedent, such as State v. Griffith, which stated this same statute is 'not a strict liability offense,' and State v. Tevay, which endorsed a mistake-of-fact defense in a similar context. The legislative silence on intent should be resolved in favor of the accused under the rule of lenity, not used to create a draconian penalty that treats consensual teenage sex based on a mistake the same as predatory child molestation. A growing majority of American jurisdictions and the Model Penal Code have moved away from this antiquated strict liability rule, and a jury is capable of sorting out legitimate mistake-of-age claims from fabricated ones.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Rhode Island's position among the minority of jurisdictions that retain a strict liability standard for the age element in statutory rape offenses. It establishes a clear legal distinction in the state's jurisprudence: while the actus reus (the physical act) of some forms of sexual penetration may require a mens rea to distinguish from innocent contact, the attendant circumstance of the victim's age does not. The ruling significantly limits the scope of defenses in such cases, placing the full onus on an individual to ascertain, at their peril, the true age of their sexual partner. This precedent reinforces the legislature's policy of protecting minors absolutely, even at the cost of punishing defendants who may have lacked a 'guilty mind' as to the victim's age.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Yanez