State v. McDowell, Cr. N
Decision Date | 28 October 1981 |
Docket Number | Cr. N |
Citation | 312 N.W.2d 301 |
Parties | STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff, v. LaVonne S. McDOWELL, Defendant. o. 790. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Larry E. Stern, Asst. State's Atty., Fargo, for plaintiff.
William Kirschner, Fargo, for defendant.
The issues under consideration were certified to us pursuant to Rule 47.1 of the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure by the Honorable Donald J. Cooke, Judge of Cass County Court with Increased Jurisdiction.
The certified questions and answers by the trial court are:
(1) Is it constitutional to subject an offender to imprisonment under Section 6-08-16 of the North Dakota Century Code? Answer: No
(2) If it is unconstitutional to subject an offender to imprisonment under Section 6-08-16 of the North Dakota Century Code, is it constitutional to subject such offender to a fine? Answer: Yes
The trial court's findings of fact of all pertinent facts needed to resolve the question of law are as follows:
Section 6-08-16, North Dakota Century Code, provides as follows:
Notice of Dishonored Check
Date ______
Name of Issuer ______
Street Address ______
City and State ______
You are according to law hereby notified that a check dated ____, 19__, drawn on the ______ Bank of ______ in the amount of ______ has been returned unpaid with the notation the payment has been refused because of nonsufficient funds. Within ten days from the receipt of this notice, you must pay or tender to
such instrument in full.
Initially we note, and it is conceded by both parties, that a culpability element is not required to constitute a violation of NDCC § 6-08-16. 1
The defendant contends that NDCC § 6-08-16 is unconstitutional in that it does not set out a mens rea, intent, or culpability and in effect provides for strict criminal liability. The defendant further contends that if the statute is not unconstitutional for those reasons, then only a fine, but no incarceration penalty, may be imposed.
The State asserts that the statute, NDCC § 6-08-16, is a valid regulatory statute and that a violation of its provisions constitute a class B misdemeanor for which the penalty of a maximum of 30 days' imprisonment and a fine of $500, or both, may be imposed. NDCC § 12.1-32-01(5).
The pivotal issue we must resolve is: May the Legislature enact laws making the violation thereof a matter of strict criminal liability regardless of any mens rea, intent, or culpability involved? If so, is there any limitation as to the penalty which may be imposed?
The secondary issue is: If the Legislature may enact such laws, may the penalty be more than a fine, or may incarceration be part of the penalty?
At common law, criminal liability required proof of both a guilty mind and the proscribed physical act. W. LaFave & A. Scott, Handbook on Criminal Law 192 (1972). The advent of modern statutory crime which has no antecedent in common law, has, to a limited degree modified the traditional rule. See, e. g., United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250, 42 S.Ct. 301, 66 L.Ed. 604 (1922); United States v. Behrman, 258 U.S. 280, 42 S.Ct. 303, 66 L.Ed. 619 (1922). In Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 228, 78 S.Ct. 240, 242, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957), the Supreme Court stated:
However, Lambert v. California, supra, makes it clear the Legislature's "latitude" is not unlimited.
Both the defendant and the State relied heavily upon Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 72 S.Ct. 240, 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952). But that case is not dispositive of the issues under consideration here for several reasons. In Morissette, the defendant, after hunting on a government bombing range, carried away and sold three tons of spent bomb casings in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. This statute, in pertinent part, provides:
"Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority sells, conveys, or disposes of any record ... or thing of value of the United States ... shall be fined not more than $10,000 nor imprisoned not more than ten years, or both ...."
In Morissette the trial court refused to submit, or to allow defendant's counsel to argue to the jury that the defendant acted without wrongful or criminal intent, and instructed the jury that lack of criminal intent was not a defense, and that such intent was "presumed by his own act." The indictment, however, charged that he "did unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly steal and convert" property of the United States of the value of $84 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641.
The issue was whether or not Congress intended to impose liability for taking Government property where the defendant honestly believed the property had been abandoned.
The Morissette Court at 342 U.S. 274, 72 S.Ct. 255, 96 L.Ed. 306, said:
"Where intent of the accused is an ingredient of the crime charged, its existence is a question of fact which must be submitted to the jury."
The indictment clearly included intent as a part of the crime charged even though the statute may not have specifically included intent. The Court observed that stealing, purloining, etc., was a common law offense and that intent was an ingredient of that crime. The Supreme Court then construed the statute to require proof that the defendant had knowledge he was taking Government property.
But more significantly, Morissette did not directly or indirectly rule on the issues that we have here under consideration. The Court specifically said:
Morissette, supra, 342 U.S. at 260, 72 S.Ct. at 248, 96 L.Ed. at 299.
In Balint the defendant was charged with unlawfully selling a derivative of opium and a certain amount of a derivative of coca leaves contrary to the provisions of § 2 of the Narcotic Act of December 17, 1914, 2 and not pursuant to any written order or form issued in blank for that purpose by the commissioner of internal revenue. The defendants demurred on the ground that the charge failed to state that they sold the inhibited drugs knowing them to be such. The statute did not make knowledge an element of the offense. In determining whether or not there was a violation of due process for punishing a person for violating a crime which involved no culpability, the Court responded by saying:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Kainz
...the elements of the offense charged? During oral argument the parties conceded that the first two issues were resolved by State v. McDowell, 312 N.W.2d 301, (N.D.1981) and State v. Rippley, 319 N.W.2d 129 (N.D.1982), wherein we held that the Legislature has the authority constitutionally to......
-
State v. Hatch, Cr. N
...of another by deception with intent to deprive the owner thereof. This does not constitute imprisonment for debt. See State v. McDowell, 312 N.W.2d 301, 307 (N.D.1981); State v. Goetz, 312 N.W.2d 1, 7 We also find no merit in Hatch's argument that the imposition of criminal penalties and ci......
-
State v. Rippley, Cr. N
...due process. The regulatory provisions would be an exercise in futility if there were no sanctions for non-compliance." State v. McDowell, 312 N.W.2d 301, 306 (N.D.1981) (strict criminal liability upheld for statute providing for fine or imprisonment for issuing check without account or wit......
-
State v. Wilt
...violates Art. I, Sec. 15 of the North Dakota Constitution, which prohibits imprisonment for failure to pay a debt. See State v. McDowell, 312 N.W.2d 301 (N.D.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 981, 103 S.Ct. 318, 74 L.Ed.2d 294 (1982). However, Altman failed to raise this argument either in the ......