Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Chris22, HLS '22 |

0 0

Back to briefs

People v. Olsen

(1984)

Supreme Court of California - 685 P.2d 52, 36 Cal. 3d 638

tl;dr:

The legislature acts within its power when it imposes strict liability for the crime of statutory rape; so, reasonable mistake as to the age of the victim is not a defense.

Video Summary

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for People v. Olsen

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the People v. Olsen case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingPeople v. Olsen case brief facts & holding

Facts:The victim was staying in her parents' trailer in their...

Holding:The court held that mistake is not a viable defense...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the People v. Olsen case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
People v. Olsen | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: BIRD, C. J.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The defendant, Olsen, was found guilty of violating section 288, subdivision (a) for lewd or lascivious conduct with a child under 14. Olsen appealed the decision, arguing that a good faith, reasonable mistake of age should be a defense. The court recognized a mistake of age defense in other contexts but cautioned that it does not apply to cases where the victim is obviously too young to reasonably believe they are of legal age. The Court is considering whether to apply the Hernandez rule to section 288 cases, but three post-Hernandez Court of Appeal decisions have refused to apply it. The courts have refused to apply Hernandez to section 288 cases, relying on the strong public policy to protect children of tender years, and section 288 was enacted for that very purpose.

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 People v. Olsen case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Opinion (Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part), author: GRODIN, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The author argues that individuals should not be convicted of traditional crimes without proof of fault, particularly when the offense carries serious sanctions and stigma. Legal scholars support this argument, citing the Robinson v. California case and the Burg v. Municipal Court decision. The court acknowledged the possibility of constitutional issues arising from strict liability crimes, as seen in the State v. Guest case, which held that convicting a person of a serious crime without the requirement of criminal intent would be a deprivation of liberty without due process of 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 People v. Olsen 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 People v. Olsen 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.

People v. Olsen

Chat for People v. Olsen
brief-680
👍 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.