To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library




State v. Kargar

    Brief Fact Summary. The Defendant, Mohammad Kargar (Defendant), an Afghani refugee, was convicted of two counts of gross sexual assault for kissing his young son’s penis. The Defendant sought to have the charges dismissed under a de minimis statute arguing that in his culture, kissing his son’s penis is an acceptable practice.

    Synopsis of Rule of Law. Since the defendant’s culture approved of the defendant’s conduct, he did not violate the sexual assault statute.

    Facts. A neighbor, whom the Defendant and his family were babysitting, saw the defendant kiss his eighteen-month-old son’s penis. She reported this incident to her mother who reported that she had also seen a photograph of the Defendant kissing his son’s penis. The police were notified and the Defendant was arrested and charged with two counts of gross sexual assault. At the jury-waived trial, the Defendant sought to have the charges dismissed pursuant to the de minimis statute on the grounds that, among other things, his culture accepted the practice. The trial judge denied the motion and convicted the Defendant on both counts.

    Issue. Is cultural acceptance of proscribed conduct a valid reason to have the charges dismissed as de minimis?

    Held. Yes. Since the Defendant’s culture accepted the practice of kissing one’s son’s penis, there was inherently nothing “sexual” about the Defendant’s conduct. The Legislature could not have envisioned such a situation when enacting the statute, so the absence of any exception for cultural acceptance in the statute is not relevant. Rather, it would be a great injustice to let the Defendant’s conviction stand.

    Points of Law - for Law School Success

    In addition, the trial court should consider a number of factors that were outlined by the supreme court in Park (the Park factors), including: (1) the background, experience and character of the defendant; (2) knowledge on the part of the defendant of the consequences of the act; (3) the circumstances surrounding the offense; (4) the harm or evil caused or threatened by the offense; (5) the probable impact of the offense on the community; (6) the seriousness of the punishment; (7) the mitigating circumstances; (8) possible improper motives of the complainant or prosecutor; (9) any other data which may reveal the nature and degree of the culpability in the offense committed by each defendant.

    View Full Point of Law
    Discussion. Importantly, cultural acceptance is not a “defense.” Rather, the charges were dismissed as de minimis. In other words, the Defendant conduct, though technically in violation of the statute, was not so offensive to warrant conviction for the c

    Create New Group

      Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following