Facts
- Martin Holmes, age 24, met a 15-year-old girl in Rochester, New Hampshire.
- The girl told Holmes she was 17.
- After exchanging phone numbers and speaking by phone, the girl (after consuming alcohol) called Holmes and arranged to meet at a local park.
- At the park, Holmes and the girl had sexual intercourse.
- Holmes was indicted and tried for felonious sexual assault based on sexual penetration with a person at least 13 but under 16, not his spouse, under RSA 632-A:3, II.
Issues
- Whether RSA 632-A:3, II requires the State to prove the defendant knew the complainant was under 16 at the time of penetration.
- Whether a mistake-of-age defense is available for felonious sexual assault under RSA 632-A:3, II.
- Whether prior New Hampshire precedent treating statutory rape as strict liability should be overruled in light of the Criminal Code’s general culpability provision, RSA 626:2, I.
Decision
- The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
- The court held felonious sexual assault under RSA 632-A:3, II is strict liability as to the complainant’s age; the State need not prove knowledge or any culpable mental state regarding age.
- The court held mistake as to the complainant’s age is not a defense under the statute.
- The court declined to overrule prior decisions interpreting the statute as strict liability, emphasizing stability in the law and legislative acceptance of that interpretation.
Legal Principles
- When a statute has been consistently construed by precedent, overruling requires a strong showing that the prior interpretation is clearly erroneous and unworkable.
- Under RSA 632-A:3, II, the victim’s being under 16 is an element proved by age alone; mens rea regarding age is not required.
- RSA 626:2, I supplies default culpability requirements unless the legislature has indicated an intent to impose strict liability for a particular element or offense.
- Legislative inaction following repeated statutory amendments may be treated as acceptance of a settled judicial interpretation.
- Statutory rape provisions serve a protective function for minors deemed legally incapable of consenting, supporting strict liability treatment as to age absent legislative change.
Conclusion
The court affirmed Holmes’s felonious sexual assault conviction, holding that RSA 632-A:3, II imposes strict liability regarding the complainant’s age and does not permit a mistake-of-age defense; any change to add a knowledge requirement or such a defense must come from the legislature.