A strict liability crime is an offense the prosecution can prove without showing you meant to break the law. Most California charges require a guilty mental state. A small group does not, and for those charges, an honest accident is not a defense to the act itself.
That does not leave you without options. Prosecutors still carry the burden of proving every remaining element beyond a reasonable doubt, and the evidence behind those elements can be challenged.
Facing a strict liability crime in Rancho Cucamonga or elsewhere in Southern California? The defense attorneys at My Rights Law Criminal Defense and DUI Lawyers can review the charge, the stop, and the testing behind it.
Call 909-330-3880 for a free case evaluation.
Strict liability crimes remove the mental state from the list of things prosecutors must prove. Your intentions, your care, and your good faith belief become legally irrelevant to guilt.
That is the exception, not the rule. California requires a guilty mind for most offenses, and courts treat the absence of one as a serious gap in the government's case.
Criminal charges are built from two parts. The first is the prohibited act. The second is the mental state that accompanied it.
Specific intent crimes require proof that you wanted a particular result. General intent crimes require proof that you meant to do the act itself. Strict liability offenses require neither.
Removing intent does not remove the burden of proof. In a strict liability case, prosecutors must still establish:
What they no longer have to prove is that you knew your conduct was unlawful, that you intended the outcome, or that you acted carelessly. Each remaining element is still a place where a defense can be built.
Prosecutors sometimes describe a charge as strict liability when the law says otherwise. California courts apply a real test before accepting that label.
California Penal Code § 20 states that every crime or public offense requires a union, or joint operation, of act and intent, or criminal negligence.
The California Supreme Court has held that this section establishes a presumption against strict liability, at least where the penalties involved are substantial. Legislative silence about a mental state is not the same as legislative intent to eliminate one.
The offenses below are the ones most often prosecuted without proof of intent. Some are pure strict liability. Others remove intent from one element while leaving others intact.
California Vehicle Code § 23152 makes it unlawful to drive under the influence, and separately makes it unlawful to drive with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08% or more.
Under the per se subsection, prosecutors do not have to prove you felt impaired or intended to drive impaired. The measured number carries the charge, which is why our attorneys focus on how that number was produced.
California applies stricter thresholds to drivers under 21. California Vehicle Code § 23136 is the zero tolerance provision, reaching a BAC of 0.01% or higher. It is an administrative action rather than a criminal charge, but it can still cost a young driver a license.
California Vehicle Code § 23140 addresses drivers under 21 with a BAC of 0.05% or higher and is charged as an infraction. Neither provision requires proof that the driver felt any effect from the alcohol.
California Penal Code § 261.5 defines unlawful sexual intercourse as intercourse with a person under 18 who is not the spouse of the accused. The consent of the minor is not a defense.
Penalties scale with the age gap. An age difference of three years or less is a misdemeanor. A larger gap can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony, and a person 21 or older with a minor under 16 faces the most serious exposure under the section.
Although unlawful sexual intercourse is often described as a strict liability offense, California recognizes a limited mistake-of-age defense in certain cases under People v. Hernandez.
Business and Professions Code § 25658 makes it a misdemeanor to sell, furnish, give, or cause to be given any alcoholic beverage to a person under 21.
A person who furnishes alcohol to a minor faces a mandatory fine of $1,000 and at least 24 hours of community service. Where the minor then consumes the alcohol and proximately causes great bodily injury or death, the statute carries a minimum six-month county jail term and a $3,000 fine.
The statute is explicit about the age element in the licensee context. Subdivision (d) reaches an on-sale licensee who knowingly permits underage consumption whether or not the licensee knew the person was under 21.
California Vehicle Code § 12500 prohibits driving on a highway without a valid California driver’s license for the class of vehicle being driven. Believing your license was current does not answer the charge.
Most moving violations operate as strict liability offenses. Speeding, running a red light, and equipment violations are proven by the conduct itself, not by any intention behind it.
These carry fines rather than jail exposure. They can still affect insurance rates, commercial driving privileges, and immigration screening.
Regulatory offenses covering food safety, environmental discharge, workplace conditions, and licensed business operations are the classic public welfare category. Businesses and individuals can face liability for compliance failures that were never intended.
Assuming a charge carries no mental state can lead someone to plead when a real defense existed. Several California offenses that sound automatic are not.
Simple possession of a controlled substance is not a strict liability offense. Under CALCRIM No. 2304, prosecutors must prove the accused knew of the substance's presence and knew of its nature or character as a controlled substance.
Someone unaware that drugs were in a borrowed car or a shared bag has a defense to the knowledge element. Our drug crimes attorneys examine who had access to the space and what evidence actually ties the substance to our client.
Weapons charges are often described as automatic. In re Jorge M. rejected that framing for assault weapon possession, holding that the prosecution must prove the accused knew or reasonably should have known the firearm had the characteristics bringing it within the statute.
Leaving the scene of a collision is not proven by the departure alone. The charge turns on what the driver knew about the collision at the time, which separates it from the strict liability traffic violations above.
Strict liability offenses are often called minor. Some are. Others carry jail exposure and consequences that follow a person for years.
Infractions are punishable by fine and carry no jail time. Most zero tolerance and traffic matters resolve at this level.
Misdemeanors carry county jail exposure, probation terms, and a criminal record. Furnishing alcohol to a minor and driving without a license both sit here.
Some strict liability offenses reach felony territory. Unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor can be charged as a felony depending on the ages involved, and the consequences extend well past any sentence.
No intent requirement does not mean no defense. Our attorneys attack the elements that remain and the evidence supporting them.
The prohibited act still has to be proven. Whether a person was driving, whether a sale happened, and whether the item was present are all contested questions in the right case.
Chemical results drive most strict liability prosecutions. Breath machine calibration records, blood draw procedures, sample storage, and analyst qualifications are all discoverable and all challengeable.
Mouth alcohol, medical conditions, and rising blood alcohol can distort a reading. In cases built on a number, the reliability of that number is often the case.
California recognizes a mistake of age defense to unlawful sexual intercourse in some cases. In People v. Hernandez (1964) 61 Cal.2d 529, the California Supreme Court held that a charge of statutory rape is defensible where criminal intent is lacking.
That ruling opened the door to evidence of a good faith and reasonable belief that the other person was 18 or older.
The defense is limited and fact-dependent, and it does not apply to every charge or every set of circumstances. A belief that was not reasonable will not support it. Anyone told that intent is simply irrelevant to a § 261.5 charge is receiving an incomplete picture of California law.
Constitutional protections apply regardless of the mental state a statute requires. An unlawful stop, a search without valid justification, or a detention that exceeded its lawful scope can lead to suppression of the resulting evidence.
When suppressed evidence was the foundation of a strict liability charge, the prosecution may be left unable to prove the act at all.
Not every case is won by acquittal. Depending on the offense and record, options may include a reduced charge, a negotiated disposition, or a diversion program that avoids a conviction.
Our attorneys evaluate these paths alongside trial preparation rather than instead of it.
The window to protect your rights is shorter than most people expect, and one deadline runs outside the courtroom entirely.
The per se subsection functions that way. Prosecutors prove the BAC rather than any intent to drive impaired, though the accuracy of that measurement remains open to challenge.
It is treated as one for consent purposes, but California recognizes a limited mistake of age defense under People v. Hernandez where the belief was honest and reasonable.
Yes. Infractions carry fines only, but misdemeanor and felony strict liability offenses carry county jail exposure and, in some cases, longer terms.
No. Ignorance of the law is separate from strict liability and is generally not a defense to any California criminal charge.
A strict liability crime is prosecuted by the government and carries fines, jail, and a criminal record. A strict liability tort is a civil claim brought by a private party seeking money damages.
Being told that intent does not matter is not the same as being told your case cannot be defended. A strict liability crime still has elements, and those elements rest on evidence that can be tested, challenged, and sometimes suppressed.
At My Rights Law Criminal Defense and DUI Lawyers, our attorneys examine the stop, the testing, the reports, and the statute the prosecution is relying on. Attorney Bobby Shamuilian and our defense team handle criminal charges throughout Rancho Cucamonga and Southern California, and we offer flat fee pricing so you know what your defense costs from the start. Se habla español.
Call My Rights Law Criminal Defense and DUI Lawyers at 909-330-3880 for a free case evaluation.
This page was written by the My Rights Law Editorial Team and reviewed for legal accuracy by Bobby Shamuilian.
Attorney Shamuilian is the founder and managing partner of My Rights Law and is widely recognized as a legal authority, frequently appearing as a legal analyst and TV pundit on national news outlets.
He has earned a perfect “10.0 – Top Attorney” rating on AVVO and a “10.0” rating on Justia, and has been named among the “Top 40 Under 40” and the “Top 100 Trial Lawyers” by The National Trial Lawyers.
With his proven expertise and dedication, Mr. Shamuilian is committed to protecting your rights and achieving the best possible outcome for your case.
The last modified date shows when this page was most recently reviewed.
schedule a free confidential consultation
