Opinion

Commonwealth v. Gallagher

  • 2005 Pa. Super. 116
  • 874 A.2d 49
  • 2005 Pa. Super. LEXIS 433
Court
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Mar 30, 2005
Status
Published
Author
Stevens
On the bench
Stevens, Bender, Montemuro
Cited by
5 cases
Authority
More cited than 8.7%

The opinion

STEVENS, J.,

Dissenting.:

¶ 1 I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to reverse the trial court’s judgment of sentence on Appellant’s conviction for luring a child into a motor vehicle.

¶ 2 The offense of luring a child into a motor vehicle is defined in 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2910, which provides that: “A person who lures a child into a motor vehicle without the consent, express or implied, of the child’s parent or guardian, unless the circumstances reasonably indicate the child is in need of assistance, commits a misdemeanor of the first degree.” 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 2910. In Commonwealth v. Figueroa, 436 Pa.Super. 569 , 648 A.2d 555 (1994), this Court, in analyzing § 2910, stated that:

*66 [CJriminal intent or guilty knowledge is an essential element of a criminal offense, though the legislature may define a crime so that proof of criminal intent or guilty knowledge is unnecessary. In such case, the culpability or mens rea is established by proof that the person acted intentionally, knowingly or recklessly.

The gravamen of the present crime is luring a child into a motor vehicle. We have stated above that inviting the children into [an individual’s] car with a promise of a ride to school or the bus stop ... is sufficient to meet the prohibition of the statute. This knowing conduct we believe meets the requirement of culpability. That there may have been no intent to harm is not relevant since this is not a requirement of the act.

Id. at 557-558.

¶ 3 As noted by the majority, in interpreting § 2910, the Figueroa Court imputed strict liability -with respect to the intent to harm. I would also impute strict liability to the age element in that the statute at issue does not specifically provide a mistake of age defense. In order to give full effect to the intention of the Legislature, I would find that luring a child into a motor vehicle is a strict liability offense, which may be committed regardless of a defendant’s motive, and that the Act does not require a showing of intent to harm. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of sentence.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.