(REVISED) Optional: Lambert v. California

In Staples, the Supreme Court considered whether a statute that seemed to be strict liability should instead be read to require a culpable mental state. In Lambert, the Court considers a different issue: whether a statute that doesn't require the prosecution to prove a mental state violates the constitution. And, because the statute at issue criminalized an omission, the question became one of "mistake of law" (because, given that the defendant didn't do anything, there was no mistake of fact).

As you read Lambert, consider these questions:

1. What is the Court’s holding in Lambert? What is the Constitutional basis for that holding? The policy basis?

2. Do you agree that the Due Process Clause should require the state to prove some level of mental culpability? In other words, should the MPC's default mens rea (MPC § 2.02(3)) be a constitutional requirement?

After reading Lambert, consider these two hypotheticals:

3. Hypo: D is a trucker who specializes in toxic waste disposal. The State of Utopia passes a new law requiring all transporters of toxic waste to undergo enhanced training. D, unaware of the law, continues to transport toxic waste. If D is prosecuted for violating the new law, will he have a valid defense under Lambert? What is the prosecution's best argument for distinguishing Lambert?

4. Hypo: The State of Utopia passes a sex offender registration requirement and makes a failure to comply with that requirement a crime. D, who had been convicted of statutory rape in Utopia, failed to register as a sex offender becuase he was unaware of the new law. If D is prosecuted for violating the new law, will he have a valid defense under Lambert? What is the prosecution's best argument for distinguishing Lambert?