## Facts

- In June 1981, the complainant was 13 years and 10 months old and slept in a locked camper trailer in her family’s driveway.
- She awoke to James Garcia in the trailer with a knife and his hand over her mouth; Garcia summoned Edward Einar Olsen and threatened to stab her if she did not let Olsen have sex with her.
- Olsen briefly held the knife to the complainant’s neck, returned it to Garcia, and then engaged in sexual intercourse with her after the men removed her clothing.
- The complainant had previously told Olsen and Garcia that she was over 16; an officer testified Olsen believed she was 17.
- The complainant’s father, awakened by barking dogs, confronted the men at the trailer; Garcia stabbed the father as the men fled.
- A jury acquitted Olsen of burglary, forcible rape, and lewd acts by force, but convicted him of committing lewd or lascivious acts on a child under 14 in violation of Penal Code § 288(a).
- The trial court refused Olsen’s requested instruction that a reasonable, good-faith mistake about the victim’s age is a defense to § 288(a).

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant’s reasonable, good-faith mistake as to the victim’s age is a defense to a charge under California Penal Code § 288(a) when the victim is under 14 years old.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that a reasonable mistake of age is not a defense to a § 288(a) charge involving a child under 14.
- The court distinguished prior authority allowing a mistake-of-age defense for statutory rape involving older minors, emphasizing that it did not extend to children of “tender years.”
- The court relied on the Legislature’s strong policy to protect children under 14 and treated the victim’s age under § 288(a) as not requiring proof that the defendant knew the child’s age.
- The court found further legislative confirmation in a probation-limitation statute that considers reasonable belief about age only at sentencing, not as an element negating guilt.
- A separate opinion concurred in the judgment but criticized characterizing the offense as strict liability regarding age and suggested a narrow, demanding mistake-of-age standard could be considered as a matter of policy.

## Legal Principles

- Under California Penal Code § 288(a), a reasonable, good-faith mistake about whether the victim was 14 or older does not excuse lewd or lascivious conduct when the victim is in fact under 14.
- A mistake-of-age defense recognized for certain sex offenses involving older minors does not apply to conduct criminalized to protect children under 14.
- Statutory structure may indicate legislative intent to treat a defendant’s belief about age as relevant to punishment (e.g., probation eligibility) rather than to guilt.

## Conclusion

California law imposes liability under Penal Code § 288(a) based on the victim’s being under 14, and a defendant’s reasonable belief that the child was older does not provide a defense to the charge.


People v. Olsen, 36 Cal. 3d 638 (Cal. 1984)