## Facts

- Lisa Hacker, an adult aunt of a 13-year-old boy (C.G.), hosted C.G. and his 12-year-old friend (N.A.) at her apartment.
- While playing “truth or dare,” Hacker dared N.A. to perform oral sex on C.G.
- When N.A. refused, Hacker threatened to tell N.A.’s mother she had misbehaved if N.A. did not comply.
- N.A. performed oral sex on C.G. at Hacker’s direction.
- The Commonwealth charged Hacker with, among other offenses, criminal solicitation to commit rape of a child.
- Hacker was convicted at trial of solicitation to commit rape of a child and other offenses.

## Issues

1. In a prosecution for criminal solicitation to commit rape of a child, must the Commonwealth prove the defendant-solicitor knew the complainant was under 13 when the completed offense imposes strict liability as to age?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court and reinstated Hacker’s conviction for solicitation to commit rape of a child.
- The Court held the Commonwealth was not required to prove Hacker knew N.A. was under 13.
- The evidence was sufficient because Hacker encouraged and pressured N.A. to engage in the sexual conduct that, given N.A.’s actual age, constituted rape of a child.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal solicitation requires proof that the defendant, with intent to promote or facilitate the commission of a crime, commanded, encouraged, or requested another to engage in specific conduct that would constitute the crime or an attempt.
- When the underlying target offense makes an element strict liability (here, the complainant’s age for rape of a child), solicitation does not add a knowledge requirement for that element.
- Legislative elimination of a mistake-of-age defense for rape of a child renders a defendant’s belief about the complainant’s age irrelevant to culpability for both the completed offense and solicitation to commit it.

## Conclusion

Pennsylvania law does not require proof that a solicitor knew a child victim was under 13 to sustain a conviction for solicitation to commit rape of a child, because the solicitation statute focuses on intent to promote or facilitate the proscribed conduct and the rape-of-a-child statute imposes strict liability as to age.


Commonwealth v. Hacker, 15 A.3d 333 (Pa. 2011)