A state statute makes it a crime to "sell an alcoholic beverage to a person under the age of 21." A store owner sold a can of beer to a 20-year-old customer. The customer appeared to be over 21 and presented a fake ID that looked authentic. The store owner was charged with violating the statute. In a jurisdiction where this is a strict liability offense, what is the likely outcome?
The store owner will be acquitted because they lacked the necessary mental state to commit the crime.
The store owner will be found guilty only if the prosecution can prove the owner was negligent in checking the ID.
The store owner will be acquitted because they made a reasonable mistake of fact.
The store owner will be found guilty because their intent is irrelevant.
The correct answer is that the store owner will be found guilty because their intent is irrelevant. For strict liability crimes, the prosecution only needs to prove that the defendant committed the prohibited act (actus reus); the defendant's mental state (mens rea) is not an element of the crime. Therefore, the owner's reasonable belief that the customer was of legal age is not a valid defense. Defenses based on mistake of fact or lack of mens rea are inapplicable to strict liability offenses. Likewise, a negligence standard is irrelevant; the act itself creates liability.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What are strict liability crimes?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Can you give examples of strict liability crimes?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is mens rea and how does it relate to strict liability?