State of Louisiana v. Dominick Sims
195 So. 3d 441
La.2016Background
- Defendant Dominick Sims was charged with trafficking of children for sexual purposes under La. R.S. 14:46.3 in March 2014 and moved to quash, arguing the statute was unconstitutional.
- The specific statutory tension: R.S. 14:46.3(A)(1) criminalizes "knowingly" recruiting/transporting/etc. a person "under the age of eighteen," while R.S. 14:46.3(C)(2) provides that lack of knowledge of the victim’s age is not a defense.
- The district court granted the motion to quash, holding subsection C(2) unconstitutional because it conflicted with the mens rea element in subsection A(1).
- The State (Attorney General) appealed directly to the Louisiana Supreme Court under Louisiana Constitution art. V, §5(D).
- The Supreme Court reviewed statutory text, purpose, legislative history, and controlling precedent, and concluded the statute clearly removes knowledge of age as an element and does not render the statute unconstitutionally vague or contradictory.
- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding R.S. 14:46.3(C)(2) constitutional and severable from other provisions.
Issues and Key Cases Cited
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.S. 14:46.3(C)(2) ("lack of knowledge of victim's age not a defense") irreconcilably conflicts with the mens rea "knowingly" in R.S. 14:46.3(A)(1) | R.S. 14:46.3 is contradictory/vague because "knowingly" requires proof of knowledge of all elements, including age | The statute's text and purpose show "knowingly" modifies the defendant's conduct (e.g., recruiting/transporting) and subsection C(2) plainly eliminates knowledge of age as a defense | The Court held C(2) is clear and constitutional; "knowingly" applies to the act, not knowledge of age; strict-liability for victim age is permissible here |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Granier, 765 So.2d 998 (La. 2000) (legislature may exclude mens rea for certain offenses)
- Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419 (1985) (statutory interpretation can avoid criminalizing innocent conduct)
- Dean v. United States, 556 U.S. 568 (2009) (mens rea occasionally dispensed with for public welfare and juvenile-related offenses)
- United States v. Jones, 471 F.3d 535 (4th Cir. 2006) (adverb "knowingly" modifies verb, not the victim's age)
- United States v. Copeland, 820 F.3d 809 (5th Cir. 2016) (upholding reduced burden on government re: knowledge of victim's age in sex-trafficking statutes)
- State v. Fussell, 974 So.2d 1223 (La. 2008) (statutory interpretation principles)
- State v. Cinel, 646 So.2d 309 (La. 1994) (distinguished — involved First Amendment concerns in child pornography context)
- X-Citement Video, Inc. v. United States, 513 U.S. 64 (1994) (knowledge of age is an elemental fact for child pornography given First Amendment protection)
- Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (2009) (discussion of mens rea presumptions and elements)