Johnson v. Youden (1950)

Facts: The two defendants were charged with aiding and abetting a builder in selling a house at a price which was over the legal limit, thus violating a strict liability statue. The defendants argued that they did not know that the builder was charging over the legal limit, so they can not be held liable. The prosecutor, on the other hand, argued that the statue which the builder violated was a strict liability statue, so the defendant's did not need mens rea for them to be convicted.

Issue: Can the defendants be held liable for aiding and abetting a crime in violation of a strict liability statue, when the defendants did not know all the factors involved in the crime?

Holding: No

Legal Reasoning: The court reasoned that if the defendants actually knew what the builder was charging for the house and they did not know that it was a crime, then they have no defense because ignorance of the law is not a defense. But, the court ruled, in the current case, the defendants did not know how much the builder was charging so they can not be charged with aiding and abetting a crime of which they did not even know about.

BACK