In re T.S.
2015 UT App 307
| Utah Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Fifteen-year-old T.S. and twelve-year-old A.R. (schoolmates) engaged in mutually consensual sexual intercourse; A.R. later disclosed it in a diary and her father reported it.
- The State filed a juvenile delinquency petition against T.S. for rape of a child, a strict-liability offense under Utah Code § 76-5-402.1.
- T.S. moved to dismiss, arguing the strict-liability statute violates due process as applied to juveniles (immaturity/brain development) and produces an absurd result in light of In re Z.C.; the juvenile court denied the motion.
- T.S. entered an admission to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, reserving the right to appeal the denial of the motion to dismiss; he was adjudicated delinquent and ordered to complete community service.
- The juvenile court found a distinct perpetrator and victim and that the age gap (2 years, 5 months) distinguished this case from In re Z.C.; T.S. did not challenge those factual findings on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether applying the strict-liability rape-of-a-child statute to a juvenile violates due process/fundamental fairness | T.S.: Juveniles’ immature brains mean they lack capacity/notice to be held under strict-liability crimes; statute fails to allow individualized consideration | State: Juvenile proceedings use fundamental fairness standard; legislature may define offenses and strict-liability (statutory rape is traditional exception); ignorance of law is not a due-process defense | Court: Rejected T.S.; due process does not require mens rea or special notice for juveniles; statute constitutional as applied |
| Whether In re Z.C. absurd-result precedent requires vacatur here | T.S.: In re Z.C. should extend because adolescents commonly engage in consensual sexual exploration and modern context blurs victim/perpetrator lines | State: In re Z.C. applies where no clear victim/perpetrator; juvenile court found a clear distinction here and statutory diversion exists for narrow age gaps | Court: Rejected expansion; In re Z.C. limited to cases with no true victim/perpetrator and factual findings here distinguish the case |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Z.C., 165 P.3d 1206 (Utah 2007) (absurd-result limitation where no true victim or perpetrator can be identified)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (juveniles differ constitutionally for death-penalty analysis)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (life without parole for juveniles in nonhomicide cases unconstitutional)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional)
- J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011) (Miranda custody analysis considers juvenile perspective)
- In re K.M., 173 P.3d 1279 (Utah 2007) (juvenile plea must be knowingly and voluntarily made)
- In re D.V., 265 P.3d 803 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (juvenile orders must be sufficiently specific given age)
- McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971) (juvenile due process standard is fundamental fairness)
- Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (1968) (no general constitutional mens rea requirement)
- United States v. Ransom, 942 F.2d 775 (10th Cir. 1991) (statutory rape is a recognized exception to mens rea requirement)
Outcome: Affirmed — the juvenile court correctly denied the motion to dismiss; the strict-liability rape-of-a-child statute was constitutional as applied to T.S., and In re Z.C. does not compel vacatur given the court’s unchallenged factual findings.