Garnett v. State

There is one traditional strict liability crime that does carry both a significant penalty and moral condemnation: statutory rape. Keep in mind that in most instances of underage sex, the defendant is not ignorant of the victim's age. But, occassionally, a defendant with no mental culpability commits the actus reus of statutory rape. Garnett is one such case, which leaves the Maryland court confronting a difficult question.

As you read Garnett, consider these questions: 

1. What did Garnett do? What crime was he charged with? What was the maximum sentence for that crime under Maryland law? What actual sentence did he receive?

2. According to the court’s holding, what is the mental state for statutory rape in Maryland? The court articulates three reasons in support of its holding. What are they?

3. What is the basis for Judge Eldridge’s dissent? Do you agree with his claim that “a 20 year old, who passes out because of drinking too many alcoholic beverages, would be guilty of a sexual offense if a 13 year old engages in … sexual activities with the 20 year old while the latter is unconscious”? (Hint: Judge Eldridge’s analogy is faulty. Why?)

4. What is the basis for Judge Bell’s dissent?

5. What are the crime-prevention and punishment arguments for and against strict liability for statutory rape?