## Facts

- Daniel Harris drove Carlos Johnson and two other men to meet a 13-year-old girl whom Johnson had contacted through a telephone chat line intended for adults.
- After the victim entered Harris’s car, Harris drove the group to a liquor store, purchased alcohol, and the victim was encouraged to drink as they traveled to a motel.
- At the motel, the group obtained a room; the victim was highly intoxicated and intermittently unable to walk.
- Johnson and the other men sexually assaulted the victim in the room while she drifted in and out of consciousness; the Commonwealth alleged Harris facilitated the crime and was present for parts of it.
- The victim described Harris as being in the room at times, watching the assaults or watching television; Harris claimed he dropped the group off and left, returning later to provide a ride.
- The victim returned near her home, went to a hospital, and had a measured blood-alcohol level of about 0.131.
- Harris was convicted in Superior Court of rape of a child on a joint-venture theory and his posttrial motions for a new trial and to revise or revoke sentence were denied.

## Issues

1. Whether a conviction for rape of a child under a joint-venture theory requires proof that the defendant knew the victim was underage.
2. Whether the joint-venture instructions and the possibility of conviction on a “nonpresence” theory created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.

## Decision

- The Appeals Court affirmed the conviction and the denial of Harris’s posttrial motions.
- The court held that rape of a child does not require proof of the defendant’s knowledge of the victim’s age.
- The court concluded that a present joint venturer shares the principal’s liability for statutory rape without any added knowledge-of-age requirement.
- The court found no substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice from the instructions when viewed as a whole, given the evidence and the Commonwealth’s theory of participation.

## Legal Principles

- Rape of a child (statutory rape) is strict liability as to the victim’s age; mistake or uncertainty about age is not a defense.
- A defendant may be liable as a joint venturer if he knowingly participates in the commission of the crime and intends to assist it.
- A present joint venturer in statutory rape is subject to the same strict-liability rule on age as the principal; the Commonwealth must prove intentional participation, not knowledge of the victim’s age.
- Unpreserved instructional challenges are reviewed for substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice, focusing on the charge as a whole and the trial evidence.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Harris’s statutory-rape conviction because Massachusetts law imposes no knowledge-of-age requirement and a present joint venturer may be convicted upon proof that he intentionally participated in and aided the offense, with no substantial risk that the jury relied on an improper joint-venture theory.


Commonwealth v. Harris, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 105 (2009)