Alex owns a self-service vending machine that dispenses highly caffeinated energy drinks. State law makes it a strict-liability crime to sell any such drink to a person under 18 years of age. A 16-year-old purchases a drink from the machine. At trial, Alex introduces evidence that he programmed the machine to require customers to confirm that they are over 18 and that he had no intent to sell to minors. Which of the following, if true, would defeat Alex's criminal liability?
He did not intend to sell the beverage to a minor.
He reasonably believed the purchaser was at least 18 years old.
The minor deliberately bypassed the machine's age-verification prompt.
He is liable regardless of intent or precautions because the statute imposes strict liability for any sale to a minor.
Under a strict-liability statute, the prosecution need only prove the prohibited act-here, the sale of the regulated beverage to a minor. Lack of intent, reasonable belief, or diligent age-verification does not matter. Therefore, none of the offered excuses negates liability, and the correct response is that Alex remains liable regardless of his precautions. The other choices all rely on mental-state or diligence arguments, which are irrelevant once strict liability is imposed.
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 is strict liability in legal terms?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What does it mean to have an age verification system in place?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the implications of relying on an age verification system?