Caseflicks

Alaska Supreme Court • 1978

State v. Guest

583 P.2d 836 | 1978 Alas. LEXIS 554

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that Alaska cannot impose the severe felony punishment of statutory rape on a defendant who honestly and reasonably believed the victim had reached the statutory age of consent.

Background

Moses Guest and Jacob Evan were charged with statutory rape after allegedly having consensual sexual intercourse with T.D.G., who was fifteen. The statute made it rape for a person at least sixteen years old to have intercourse with a person under sixteen.

Guest sought an instruction that he must be acquitted if he reasonably believed T.D.G. was at least sixteen; Evan joined the request. After reconsideration, the superior court ruled that it would give the instruction if the evidence supported such a belief. The parties then stipulated that the anticipated evidence would support a reasonable belief by each defendant that T.D.G. was sixteen or older. The court accordingly ordered an instruction recognizing an honest and reasonable mistake about the victim's age as a defense. The State petitioned for review.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether an honest and reasonable mistake of fact about a victim's age is a defense to a statutory-rape charge.

Holding

Yes. A defendant may defend against statutory rape by showing that he honestly and reasonably believed the victim was sixteen years old or older.

Reasoning

Alaska's prior decisions established that serious criminal liability ordinarily requires a consciousness of wrongdoing. In Speidel, Alex, and Kimoktoak, the court explained that imposing severe criminal punishment for innocent or inadvertent conduct, without a culpable mental state, violates due process.

Statutory rape was a serious felony, carrying up to twenty years' imprisonment for an offender under nineteen and potentially any term of years for an older offender. It therefore could not be treated as a narrow public-welfare offense, a category generally reserved for regulatory violations with comparatively minor penalties and little stigma.

Although the statutory-rape provision did not expressly state a mental-state requirement, legislative silence did not establish strict liability. Alaska courts ordinarily infer criminal intent into felony statutes unless the offense is properly classified as a public-welfare offense. Reading in that requirement also avoided construing the statute in a way that would create a constitutional due-process problem.

A reasonable mistake of fact is the means by which a defendant may show the absence of the criminal intent required for the offense. Thus, the jury could acquit if it had a reasonable doubt whether the defendant honestly and reasonably believed that T.D.G. was at least sixteen.

Issue #2

Whether a reasonable mistake that defeats statutory rape also eliminates liability for any offense, and whether Anderson v. State remained controlling.

Holding

No. The mistake defeats the statutory-rape charge, but it may leave liability for the lesser offense the defendant would have committed under the facts as reasonably believed; Anderson was overruled insofar as it rejected a reasonable-age-mistake defense.

Reasoning

The State argued that a defendant who knowingly engaged in fornication had sufficient criminal intent for statutory rape even if he reasonably believed the victim was older than sixteen. The court rejected that approach because it would effectively preserve strict liability for the aggravated offense despite the defendant's mistake about the fact that made the conduct statutory rape.

Following the Model Penal Code's approach, the court reasoned that a mistake should reduce liability to the offense that would have existed had the facts been as the defendant reasonably believed. A defendant who reasonably believed the victim was at least sixteen could not be convicted of statutory rape.

The court noted that Alaska did not criminalize fornication, so consensual intercourse with a person believed to be at least sixteen was not a lesser-degree offense. But if the defendant did not reasonably believe the victim was at least eighteen, he could still potentially be liable for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The court therefore overruled Anderson to the extent its categorical rejection of an age-mistake defense conflicted with this rule.