Commonwealth v. Hacker, 15 A.3d 333

Appellee Hacker, age 13? not relevant; NA (12) performed oral sex on CG (13) after being dared; Hacker instructed or encouraged the conduct by taking NA by the hand and placing her next to CG.
CG is the 13-year-old nephew; NA is a 12-year-old girl who visited Hacker's apartment.
Hacker was convicted by a jury of solicitation to commit the rape of a child; trial court treated age-mistake as irrelevant to the underlying crime.
Superior Court reversed the solicitation conviction, holding §3121(c) strict liability and requiring knowledge of NA's age for the solicitation to promote a crime.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocatur to decide whether knowledge of the victim's age is required to prove the solicitation conviction under §902(a) when the underlying offense (rape of a child under 13) has an age element.
The Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court, holding that §3121(c) is not a strict liability offense and that knowledge of the victim's age is not required for the solicitation charge, affirming the conviction on the basis that solicitation requires only intent to promote or facilitate the crime.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether knowledge of the victim's age is required for solicitation to commit rape of a child under §3121(c).	Commonwealth: no age knowledge required; intent to promote/facilitate suffices.	Hacker: knowledge of NA's age required; solicitation requires intent for all elements.	Knowledge of age not required; solicitation suffices with intent to promote/facilitate the crime.

Commonwealth v. Samuels, 778 A.2d 638 (Pa. 2001) (impure strict liability concept discussed for mixed elements with mens rea)
Commonwealth v. Albert, 758 A.2d 1149 (Pa. 2000) (legislative policy against mistake-of-age defenses)
Commonwealth v. Shafer, 202 A.2d 308 (Pa. 1964) (strict construction in penal statutes; role of legislated omissions)