Brenda had an opportunity to purchase a large shipment of Tylenol cold medication. This medication had been recalled by the manufacturer, but Brenda knew she could sell it cheaply to a small town pharmacy. Brenda told the pharmacist there that the shipment was not part of the recall and the pharmacist bought the medication. A child died as a result of taking the medication and Brenda has been charged with negligent homicide as a result of the sale of adulterated drugs. This is a strict liability offense in this jurisdiction. What is a strict liability offense? Why do we have strict liability offenses? How will a judge determine whether this falls within the parameters of a strict liability offense?
What will be an ideal response?
Strict liability laws require a wrongful act only; the state of mind is irrelevant. These laws are an exception to the rule that every crime must include a guilty state of mind. "For strict-liability crime, the people need only prove that the act was performed regardless of what the actor knew or did not know. . .for a strict liability crime, the people merely need to prove that the defendant performed the wrongful act, irrespective of whether he intended to perform it."Examples of strict liability offenses include traffic offenses, sale of adulterated foods or drugs, and failure to report child abuse. These offenses have in common a high standard of care necessary for safety and difficulty in establishing criminal intent.
Court will look at the language of the statute itself when determining whether a crime is a strict liability crime, but when a statute itself has no language about mens rea, several factors, taken together, can provide a general idea of whether mens rea is required or strict liability is indicated. The following factors are indications of strict liability:
1. The history of a statute can indicate legislative intent that it create a strict liability offense [filing a false statement in State v. Dobry (Iowa 1933)].
2. Some states require strict liability to be clearly or "plainly" stated in the statute [welfare fraud in State v. Rushing (Haw. 1980)].
3. The severity of punishment for the offense may indicate whether fault (mens rea) is required; the more severe the sentence the greater the likelihood that the offense has a mens rea element [owning a dog that causes injury in State v. Bash (Wash. 1996)].
4. The greater harm the offense poses toward the public, the greater is the likelihood that the offense is strict liability. The possession of illegal drugs in a school zone is deemed sufficiently dangerous to children that penalties were enhanced even though the school zone was not the intended location for distribution in U.S. v. Oritz (1st. Cir. 1998). The defendant kept the drugs in his parents' home 150 feet from a school. See also Walker v. State (Ind. 1996).
5. The difficulty for the defendant to know the facts may indicate that fault is required. Ignorance is less of an excuse when knowledge is easily obtained [depositing a dangerous substance on a highway in Krueger v. Noel (Iowa 1982)]. Driving with a suspended license is not a strict liability offense, however, when the driver has not been notified of the restriction [State v. McCallum (Md. 1991)].
6. The difficulty in proving mens rea makes it more likely that it is not a required burden on the prosecution. In U.S. v. Flum (8th Cir. 1975), the court emphasized the difficulty of proving mens rea in attempting to board an aircraft while carrying a weapon, making that a strict liability offense.
7. The greater number of prosecutions expected increases the likelihood that the statute is for a strict liability offense [bigamy in People v. Vogel (Cal. 1956)].
In interpreting statutes where state of mind is not spelled out, some courts do not require the prosecution to prove fault (mens rea), but allow the defense to present evidence of lack of fault. Strict liability statutes have been criticized for making conviction of innocent people easier, and praised for making prosecution of dangerous conduct easier.
You might also like to view...
For a case to be on point and apply as precedent:
A. the significant or key facts of the court opinion must be sufficiently similar to the key facts of the client's case. B. if the facts are not similar, the rule of law or legal principle applied in the court opinion must be so broad that it applies to many diverse fact situations. C. the rule of law or legal principle applied in the court opinion must be the same or sufficiently similar to the rule of law or legal principle that applies in the client's case. D. the background and key facts of the court opinion must be sufficiently similar to the background and key facts of the client's case. E. all of the above. F. a, b, and c. G. b, c, and d.
A document notifying the defendant he has been sued and providing a time frame within which to respond is:
A) Return of Service B) Summons C) Civil Cover Sheet D) All of the above
Brandon, Bill, and Sally, all siblings, inherited a parcel of real estate as tenants in common from their grandmother. Sally objects to how her interests are being divided by her brothers
A. She must seek a judicial severance of the tenancy B. She must file an action for a judicial partition of the tenancy C. She must sue one another jointly and severally for breach of contract D. She must obtain a declaration of interest from the Secretary of State of their jurisdiction
Legal issues are specific questions raised by the facts
Indicate whether the statement is true or false