State v. Thomas, 119240

Dylan Thomas broke into U.A.'s apartment and was tried for multiple offenses; he was convicted of rape, criminal threat, sexual battery, and battery and sentenced to a controlling 620-month term.
At trial Thomas' defense was that the sexual intercourse was consensual; the jury acquitted him of aggravated criminal sodomy and aggravated burglary.
Jury Instruction No. 5 tracked K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5503 and included the language: "It is not a defense that the defendant did not know or have reason to know that [the victim] did not consent..."
The Court of Appeals affirmed Thomas' convictions; the Kansas Supreme Court granted review only on whether the statute/instruction converted rape into an unconstitutional strict liability offense in violation of due process.
The Supreme Court assumed arguendo the statute/instruction made rape a strict liability offense but held that strict liability crimes are not per se unconstitutional and that the Legislature may create strict liability offenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5503(e) and the matching jury instruction eliminate mens rea and convert rape into a strict liability crime that violates due process	Thomas: The statute/instruction removes any requirement that he know sex was nonconsensual, effectively eliminating mens rea and violating due process	State: The instruction mirrored the statute; the Legislature may constitutionally create strict liability offenses; prior precedent upholds such statutes	Court: Instruction mirrored statute and was legally appropriate; even assuming strict liability, it does not violate due process — convictions affirmed

State v. Plunkett, 261 Kan. 1024, 934 P.2d 113 (statute-text jury instructions are legally appropriate when they mirror the statute)
State v. Creamer, 26 Kan. App. 2d 914, 996 P.2d 339 (defining strict liability as not requiring proof of general criminal intent)
In re C.P.W., 289 Kan. 448, 213 P.3d 413 (statutory interpretation of mens rea is subject to unlimited appellate review)
State v. Stoll, 312 Kan. 726, 480 P.3d 158 (upholding felony strict liability offense for failure to register under KORA)
State v. Mountjoy, 257 Kan. 163, 891 P.2d 376 (upholding strict liability for practicing without a license)
State v. Logan, 198 Kan. 211, 424 P.2d 565 (legislative authority to criminalize acts irrespective of intent)
State v. Genson, 59 Kan. App. 2d 190, 481 P.3d 137 (affirming legislative power to create strict liability crimes)