## Facts

- A police officer on nighttime patrol found Timothy R. Owens, age 18, and Ariel Correta Johnson in the rear seat of a parked car while they were getting dressed.
- The officer asked Johnson her age, and she said she was 16.
- The officer later confirmed Johnson’s date of birth, showing she was 13 years old at the time.
- The parties proceeded on a not-guilty agreed statement of facts establishing that Owens and Johnson had just engaged in vaginal intercourse.
- Owens did not dispute that Johnson had told him she was 16; he asserted his belief about her age was reasonable.
- Owens was charged with second-degree rape under Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol.), Art. 27, § 463(a)(3), which made it a felony to engage in vaginal intercourse with a person under 14 when the defendant is at least four years older.
- Owens moved to dismiss, arguing that a reasonable mistake of fact as to Johnson’s age should bar conviction and that treating the offense as strict liability violated due process.
- The trial court, relying on *Garnett v. State*, denied the motion, ruled that mistake of age was not a defense, and found Owens guilty.
- Owens was sentenced to incarceration and probation and was ordered to register as a child sex offender.
- Owens sought appellate review, and the Court of Appeals of Maryland granted certiorari and addressed the constitutional challenges.

## Issues

1. Whether Maryland’s second-degree rape statute, Art. 27, § 463(a)(3), as construed to impose strict criminal liability and to bar a reasonable mistake-of-age defense, violates due process under the U.S. and Maryland Constitutions.
2. Whether the statute creates an unconstitutional irrebuttable presumption by making the victim’s age determinative and excluding evidence of consent or the defendant’s reasonable belief about age.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed Owens’s conviction.
- The court held that applying § 463(a)(3) as a strict-liability offense and excluding a reasonable mistake-of-age defense did not violate due process.
- The court rejected the claim that the statute created an unconstitutional irrebuttable presumption, reasoning that the statute defines the elements of the offense rather than directing the factfinder to infer an element from another fact.

## Legal Principles

- The legislature may define certain crimes to impose strict criminal liability for specified conduct, even when the offense carries serious penalties, as long as the enactment does not violate constitutional guarantees.
- Under Maryland’s statutory rape scheme for intercourse with a child under 14 (with the defendant at least four years older), the State need not prove the defendant’s knowledge of the victim’s age, and a reasonable mistake about age is not a defense.
- A victim’s factual “consent,” and the defendant’s belief about the victim’s age, may be irrelevant when the statute makes the victim’s age a defining element and treats children under the specified age as legally incapable of consenting.
- A statute does not create an unconstitutional irrebuttable presumption when it directly sets out prohibited conduct and elements; presumption doctrine applies when a factfinder is told to treat one proved fact as establishing another element.
- Courts generally will not rewrite a statute to add a mens rea or affirmative defense that the legislature did not include; any change to allow a mistake-of-age defense is a legislative choice.
- Although mistake of age is not a defense to guilt under § 463(a)(3), Maryland precedent permitted such facts to be considered, if at all, in sentencing.

## Conclusion

*Owens v. State* upheld Maryland’s second-degree rape statute for intercourse with a child under 14 as a strict-liability offense: the State was not required to prove Owens knew the victim’s true age, and Owens could not avoid conviction by showing a reasonable belief that she was older. The court also rejected the argument that the statute operated as an unconstitutional irrebuttable presumption, concluding it simply defines the offense by age and age difference and reflects a legislative judgment to protect very young children from sexual exploitation.


Owens v. State, 724 A.2d 43 (1999)