 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Torres6/10/2003
rissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 256 (1952) ("The accused, if he [or she] does not will the violation, usually is in a position to prevent it with no more care than society might reasonably expect and no more exertion than it might reasonably exact from one who assumed his [or her] responsibilities."). The legislature achieved this purpose by imposing strict liability upon those who, with a general criminal intent, purposely carry a firearm into a liquor establishment.
We do not believe that Perez v. State, 111 N.M. 160, 803 P.2d 249 (1990) requires us to hold otherwise, as Defendant contends. In Perez, our Supreme Court held that criminal sexual penetration of a child between the ages of 13 and 16 was not a strict liability crime. Id. at 161-62, 803 P.2d at 250-51. Its conclusion, limited to the facts of that case, is based in part upon the policy consideration that some of the potential victims within the purview of the statute do not require the protection of strict liability. Id. at 162, 803 P.2d at 251. We do not read any such limitation to the protection of innocent patrons of liquor establishments in Section 30-7-3.
Conclusion
Because of the strict liability nature of the offense of unlawfully carrying of a firearm into a licensed liquor establishment, Defendant was not entitled to raise a mistake-of-fact defense. We therefore affirm his conviction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
JAMES J. WECHSLER, Chief Judge
WE CONCUR:
A. JOSEPH ALARID, Judge
CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge
|