Does Utah's sexual activity with a minor statute impose strict liability? State v. Martinez Explained

In State v. Martinez, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether Utah Code section 76-5-401, which criminalizes unlawful sexual activity with a minor, imposes strict liability and whether such liability violates federal due process rights.

Background and Facts

Michael Martinez was nineteen when he had sexual intercourse with a fifteen-year-old girl. Before trial, Martinez filed a motion seeking to present evidence that the victim represented herself to be seventeen years old, arguing the statute did not impose strict liability and that he should be allowed to present evidence regarding his knowledge of the victim’s age. The trial court denied the motion, relying on Utah Code section 76-2-304.5, which explicitly excludes mistake as to the victim’s age as a defense. Martinez entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary questions: (1) whether section 76-5-401 imposes strict liability for unlawful sexual activity with a minor, and (2) whether imposing such strict liability violates federal due process rights.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Supreme Court applied principles of statutory interpretation, examining the plain language of both section 76-5-401 and companion statute section 76-2-304.5. The court found that section 76-5-401’s plain language requires only proof of sexual intercourse with a minor aged 14-15, without specifying any culpable mental state. More importantly, section 76-2-304.5 explicitly states that “mistake as to victim’s age [is] not a defense” to violations of section 76-5-401, clearly indicating legislative intent to impose strict liability.

Regarding the constitutional challenge, the court noted that while criminal law generally requires proof of criminal intent, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized exceptions, particularly for sex offenses involving minors. The court found that Utah’s statutory scheme rationally furthers the legitimate governmental interest of protecting minors from sexual exploitation and does not violate federal due process.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes that Utah’s sexual activity with a minor statute imposes strict liability, eliminating mistake-of-age defenses. Practitioners should note that the presence of companion statutes that explicitly exclude certain defenses provides strong evidence of legislative intent to impose strict liability. The ruling also demonstrates that strict liability for sexual offenses against minors generally withstands federal constitutional challenges when the statutory scheme serves legitimate governmental interests in protecting children.