Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Chris22, HLS '22 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Garnett v. State

(1993)

Court of Appeals of Maryland - 632 A.2d 797

tl;dr:

A statute that defines statutory rape as a strict liablity crime does not require the state to prove mens rea.

Video Summary

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Garnett v. State

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Garnett v. State case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingGarnett v. State case brief facts & holding

Facts:The defendant was a 20 year old man who was...

Holding:The statute does not make reference to intent or knowledge,...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Garnett v. State case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Garnett v. State | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: MURPHY, Chief Judge.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The case concerns the interpretation of Maryland's "statutory rape" law and whether the defendant's knowledge of the victim's age is necessary. The court ruled that consent and a good faith defense based on the victim's representation of her age are not defenses. The defendant was found guilty of second-degree rape and sentenced to probation and restitution. The trial court did not allow the defendant to raise the defense of reasonable mistake as to the complainant's age, which is a fundamental principle of criminal law. The creation of strict liability criminal offenses without requiring mens rea has been a trend, but modern scholars generally reject the concept of strict criminal liability. Statutory rape is a strict liability offense that carries the stigma of a felony and a potential sentence of 20 years in prison, which is markedly different from other strict liability regulatory offenses.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Garnett v. State case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

Dissenting opinion, author: ELDRIDGE, Judge
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The dissenting opinion disagrees with both the majority and Judge Bell's dissenting opinion on the interpretation of Maryland Code (1957, 1992 Repl.Vol.), Art. 27, § 463(a)(3). The author of the opinion agrees with the majority that an ordinary mistake about the age of a sexual partner is not a defense to a prosecution under this statute, but they do not believe that the statute contains no mens rea requirement at all. The author argues that the trial judge was wrong to prevent exploration into the defendant's knowledge and comprehension, and that the statute is not entirely without a mens rea requirement. The law states that the mental ability to appreciate the risk of engaging in sexual activities with a young person is likely the mens rea of the offenses. The defendant should know that engaging in sexual activities with a young person is regarded as immoral and/or improper by society, and that consent by persons who are too young is ineffective.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Garnett v. State case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Dissenting opinion, author: ROBERT M. BELL, Judge
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The importance of mens rea or intent in criminal offenses, specifically in cases involving statutory rape, is emphasized in this article. While strict liability crimes, such as "public welfare" offenses, do not require intent, the court recognizes that intent is crucial in cases of statutory rape. The theories that justify strict criminal liability for statutory rape are examined, but the article acknowledges that a mistake of fact can negate the required mental state for a crime. In fact, mistake of age has been recognized as a defense to statutory rape by the California Supreme Court. This means that if a defendant reasonably believes that the minor has reached the age of consent, they can use it as a defense. Regardless of how a teenage girl appears, engaging in sexual intercourse with her is still considered rape because of the age of consent mandated by the law.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Garnett v. State case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Garnett v. State case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Garnett v. State

Chat for Garnett v. State
brief-681
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.