The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D's 13-year-old nephew, CG, and his 12-year-old female friend, NA, regularly visited her apartment. Playing a game of 'truth or dare,' D dared NA to perform oral sex on CG; when NA refused, D threatened to inform NA's mother that she had misbehaved. D took NA by the hand, walked her across the bedroom, and sat her down next to CG. NA then performed oral sex on CG. D was convicted of solicitation to commit the rape of a child. D argued she could not be convicted of solicitation because the Commonwealth failed to prove she knew NA was under the age of 13. The trial court noted that a mistake of age is not a defense to the underlying crime, and found that P need not prove D knew NA was under the age of 13. The appeals court reversed. It reasoned that the crime was a specific intent crime. 'Without evidence that D knew N.A. was under thirteen, a jury could not conclude D intended to promote or facilitate the rape of someone under thirteen.' The court reversed the solicitation conviction. P appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.