## Facts

- Alejandro Yanez, age 18, engaged in consensual sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl.
- Yanez and the complainant had previously met through family connections and later arranged to meet again.
- They went to a friend’s home and had intercourse in a back bedroom.
- After the complainant returned home late, her mother contacted police and Yanez was charged.
- At trial, Yanez admitted intercourse but claimed the complainant said she was 16 and appeared older; the complainant testified she told him she was 13.
- The trial court ruled that mistake of age was not a defense under the governing statute, excluded related evidence as irrelevant, and refused a mistake-of-age jury instruction.
- The jury convicted Yanez of first-degree child-molestation sexual assault; he received the statutory minimum 20-year sentence with 18 years suspended, probation, and sex-offender registration.

## Issues

1. Whether first-degree child-molestation sexual assault requires proof that the defendant knew (or was reckless/negligent about) the complainant’s age, such that a reasonable mistake-of-age defense is available.
2. Whether, if the offense is strict liability as to age, the trial court properly excluded evidence of the defendant’s belief about age and properly refused a mistake-of-age jury instruction.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held that the statute imposes strict liability as to the victim’s age for first-degree child-molestation sexual assault.
- Because age is strict liability, the defendant could not introduce evidence that he reasonably believed the complainant was older.
- The trial court correctly excluded mistake-of-age evidence as irrelevant and correctly refused to instruct the jury on a mistake-of-age defense.

## Legal Principles

- When a child-molestation statute criminalizes sexual penetration with a person at or below a specified age and does not include a mental-state requirement as to age, courts may treat the age element as strict liability.
- A reasonable mistake of fact concerning the complainant’s age is not a defense to a strict-liability age element and does not entitle the defendant to a jury instruction on mistake of age.
- Evidence is irrelevant and excludable when it is offered solely to support a defense that is not legally available under the offense’s elements.
- Due process is not violated by legislative choice to impose strict liability as to age for sexual penetration with very young minors; mitigation based on the defendant’s belief about age is a sentencing consideration, not a liability element.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a strict-liability interpretation of the victim-age element in first-degree child-molestation sexual assault, barring a reasonable mistake-of-age defense and affirming the exclusion of age-belief evidence and the refusal of a mistake-of-age jury instruction.


State v. Yanez, 716 A.2d 759 (R.I. 1998)