State v. Vandermeer
843 N.W.2d 686
N.D.2014Background
- Christopher Vandermeer was convicted by a jury of gross sexual imposition for engaging in sexual intercourse with J.S., who testified she was 14 and gave her date of birth.
- Police interrupted a second sexual encounter; Vandermeer admitted to having sex with J.S. during investigation.
- Pretrial, Vandermeer sought (1) a jury instruction requiring proof of intent/knowledge/recklessness as to the victim’s age and (2) a mistake-of-age affirmative defense; both were denied.
- The State moved in limine to exclude evidence that Vandermeer did not know the victim’s age and that she told him she was 17; the court granted the motion.
- At trial, Vandermeer objected to J.S.’s testimony about her age/date of birth on hearsay and foundation grounds; the court overruled and admitted the testimony.
- Vandermeer appealed, arguing (a) error admitting J.S.’s age testimony, (b) that willfulness/ mens rea should apply to age, and (c) that the statutory prohibition on mistake-of-age violated due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of victim’s testimony about her age/date of birth (foundation/hearsay) | J.S.’s testimony about her age is admissible as personal knowledge/reputation exception | Such testimony is hearsay and needed documentary foundation; prosecutor failed to lay foundation | Court affirmed admission: witness may testify to own age; rule 803(19)/common law permit it and foundation requirement not abused |
| Applicability of mens rea to age element (must prove willfully) | State: statute §12.1-20-01(1) makes age element strict liability; mens rea not required for age | Vandermeer: N.D.C.C. §12.1-02-02(3)(a) requires willfulness for every element, including age | Court held legislature expressly removed mens rea for age; willfulness not required for age element |
| Mistake-of-age affirmative defense/motion in limine to exclude evidence victim said she was 17 | State: evidence that defendant believed victim older is irrelevant because statute bars mistake-of-age defense | Vandermeer: due process requires ability to present mistake-of-age defense where victim misrepresented age | Court rejected defense and affirmed exclusion; legislature may preclude mistake-of-age in statutory-rape context |
| Constitutional due process challenge to strict liability for age | State: legislative choice permissible; courts should defer to legislature; public policy supports strict liability here | Vandermeer: treating age as strict liability violates due process when defendant was told victim was 17 | Court held statute constitutional as applied; majority of jurisdictions and Supreme Court precedent permit denial of mistake defense in sexual-contact-with-child statutes |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jaster, 690 N.W.2d 213 (N.D. 2004) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Olson, 356 N.W.2d 110 (N.D. 1984) (statutory interpretation of mens rea requirements)
- Gov’t of the Virgin Islands v. Joseph, 765 F.2d 394 (3d Cir. 1985) (a witness may testify to own age under Fed. R. Evid. 803(19))
- Antelope v. United States, 185 F.2d 174 (10th Cir. 1950) (common-law acceptance that one may testify to own age though based on family hearsay)
- Owens v. State, 724 A.2d 43 (Md. 1999) (rejecting due process requirement for mistake-of-age defense in statutory rape cases)
- United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (1994) (noting defendant confronts alleged underage victim and may be required to ascertain age)
- State v. Evans, 838 N.W.2d 605 (N.D. 2013) (treating federal interpretations as persuasive when state rules mirror federal rules)