*1 Ossipee District Court Hampshire of New and Fox Marshal H. Akers
Melvin E. Rath, attorney general (Edward Damon, N. Thomas D. assistant attorney general, orally), for the State. Conway, by orally, Cooper, of brief F. for the
Randall North defendants.
GRIMES, presents anissueoffirstimpression. The case before us whether, Hampshire’s upon to We are called determine New Code, parents of minors can be held crimi- nally responsible children’s offenses status. We hold that cannot be held vicariously for the offenses of the child. N.H. 15; whose minor sons found
The defendants fathers driving (Supp. 1977) in violation II snowmobiles 269-C:6-a (Supp. 1977) (reasonable speed). way) III public
(operating on licensing pertains to the *2 par- (OHRV), that Highway Vehicles “[t]he Recreational Off assuming responsibility responsi- will be guardians persons оr ents' or any chapter for violations of this any damage incurred or ble for Following guilty age for any of 18.” verdict under right to two defendants waived all violating RSA 269-0:24 questions superior court all of law were appeal de novo to the (Schroeder, J.). the District Court The and transferred reserved IV, the statute which argue (1) RSA 269-C:24 under defendants legislature impose convicted, to not intended was legislative (2) if in fact the intention was responsibility, and criminal responsibility, the statute would violate then N.H. criminal to pt. art. 15 and U.S. legislature’s claim that the inten the defendants’ We first address encompass enacting did not IV in tion parents whose children have committed criminal sanctions considering claim, chapter In this we are 269-C. undеr violations interpreting legislature’s guided by own mandate enact according “[wjords phrases ments, to the must construe 21:2. usage language.” approved of the common Bunker, 783, 394 A.2d 321 “Our task is to 118 N.H. Greenland according import the fair provisions to criminal code construe the Doe, Stаte justice.” promote 117 N.H. and to their terms Partlow, 78, 81, 369 (1977), quoting 279,280 State 372 A.2d IV, “parents language . . . will be re of RSA The by any chapter sponsible violations for legislature’s clearly to age 18,” intention hold the indicates criminally responsible for the OHRV violations of their minor parents children. general principle of this State’s Criminal Code that
It is a unless his criminal is based of an offense person is not act to or the that includes a on conduct physically capable.” RSA 626:1 I. which he perform an act of Adelson, 389 A.2d (Emphasis added.) State generally parents impose criminal thе acts 269-C:24 IV seeks any voluntary basing liability on act or omis children without no reference parents. Because the statute makes part siоn on the acts, responsi- seeks to it parental conduct or contrary provisions parental status to the bility solely of RSA any voluntary specified omis has sought to be made parents
sions for supply It is fundamental judicial them. function is not be process that acts omissions which are to rule of law and post ex specified advance and not must be 23;see Harding, 335, 320 N.H. facto. be argued 11(b), which authorizes provisions of 626:8 “hе is made when accountable *3 defining person law the offense.” This other the of such conduct 2.04(2)(b). The Penal Code provision comes thе Model illustra- § liability type in the comments to Code relate the tions of this agents, involving suggestion and no is employees and made situations liability tо authorize vicarious criminal that it was intended parent. merely a his status as MODELPENAL one CODE because (Tent. 1956); No. LaFave & 2.04(2)(b), Comment Draft W. Scott, Law 32 validity might passing upon the seek
Without of statutes liability employer part of an vicarious criminal Hampshire, see v. New employees, Vaсhon of his U.S. 478 Justices, hesitancy Opinion the (1852), we have no holding attempt parents simply such parents, occupy the status of without more offеnds the CONST,pt. I, constitution. clause of our State art. 15. very of our The con- Parenthood lies the foundation civilization. entirely dependent upon firmly is tinuance of the human race it. was beginning” ethic when “in entrenched the Judaeo-Christian multiply.” Genesis I. Consid- to “be fruitful and man was commanded еring parenthood, nature of convinced that the status This, however, parenthood a is cannot be made crime. the effect of parent anyone IV. Even if the has been as careful as be, parent if even if the has forbidden the and even could child, justifiably parent of the activities is unaware wording imposed still statute. responsibility no than the There is other basis for other fact parent person who is the onе violates the law. twenty-seven years ago justices One hundred and of this court in giving regarding proposed opinions law that would employer viсarious criminal on an for acts of his employee stated, this does seem be in accordance “[b]ut spirit Opinion Justices, of our . . . .” punish the net effect of the parent- Because statute is to hood, result is forbidden substantive due of N.H. art. 15.
Exceptions sustained. LAMPRON, BOIS, J., dissented; the others concurred. BOIS, dissenting: majority They read RSA 269-C:24 IV in conveniently isolation.
ignore (Criminal Liability Another), Conduct of person legally in subsection II that accоuntable for the (b) when: he is made accountable for the defining conduct of such other the law the offense. . . .” Imposing RSA 269-C:24 IV is such law. based on рrohibitum status certain violations of a mala nature does not requirements. offend constitutional See United States v. U.S. 658 accept
Even if I were to conclusion that the vicarious of criminal of children who have com- mitted an constitutionally OHRV violation under RSA ch. 269-C is impermissible, uphоld validity I still would of RSA 269-C:24 IV. A *4 reading closer State’s Criminal Code belies the reasoning that RSA 269-C:24 IV holds of minor offenders criminally responsible for their children’s offenses on the basis I, parental enunciating of their RSA 626:1 status. the fundamental Code, principle of the Criminal states that all criminal must “voluntary “voluntary bе based on a act” or omission.” When RSA conjunction 269-C:24 IV is read in with only beyond conviction can result when the State shows a reasonable dоubt that a minor child has provision committed a violation under a chapter 269-C, parent voluntarily performed and that his or omit- perform participating ted to an act such as in the minor’s entrusting, negligently allowing his operate minor child OHRV. require
When RSA 269-C:24 IV is construed to act or 1, omission in with accordance RSA 626:1 there are no due Const, infirmities, either under N.H. art. 15 or U.S.
165 required XIV, Culpable intent 1. amend. in this “It is well settled infractions. penalties сriminal a certain actor Legislature declare jurisdiction done with intent.” State requiring it to be without to act accord, 431, 1, (1958); 429, 3 Mclntire Sullivan, 146 471, 174, 176, 473 59 Borоfsky, responsibility without re imposes criminal When only violates intent, when such will override quiring case, is a there In the fairness. concepts of fundamental OHRVs, safe to assure the public interest demonstrable of RSA 269-C:24 IV imposed upon violators penalties and the guess circumstances, we will not second In such insubstantial. 64, 68-69, 174 Fuller, legislature. 87 wisdom Woolf 196 intent also been requiring no criminal welfare offenses Public of U.S. held consistent E.g., U.S. United States Bаlint, is wide “There latitude 258 U.S. of knowl- exclude elements declare an offense the lawmakers California, Lambert v. edge diligence its definition.” vindicating public policy “In may provide that ‘hewho them shall particular shall do punishing Carolina, v. North 325 U.S. peril Williams at his do them LAMPRON, in this dissent. concurs
Hillsborough Properties,
Milford Inc. of Milford