(a) Mistake as to age. — Whenever in the definition of a sexual offense, the criminality of conduct or the degree of the offense depends on whether the person has reached that person’s sixteenth birthday, it is no defense that the actor did not know the person’s age, or that the actor reasonably believed that the person had reached that person’s sixteenth birthday.
(b) Gender. — Unless a contrary meaning is clearly required, the male pronoun shall be deemed to refer to both male and female.
(c) Separate acts of sexual contact, penetration and sexual intercourse. — Nothing in this title precludes a defendant from being charged with separate offenses when multiple acts of sexual contact, penetration or intercourse are committed against the same victim.
(d) Teenage defendant. — As to sexual offenses in which the victim’s age is an element of the offense because the victim has not yet reached that victim’s sixteenth birthday, where the person committing the sexual act is no more than 4 years older than the victim, it is an affirmative defense that the victim consented to the act “knowingly” as defined in § 231 of this title. Sexual conduct pursuant to this section will not be a crime. This affirmative defense will not apply if the victim had not yet reached that victim’s twelfth birthday at the time of the act.
11 Del. C. 1953,
§
772;
58 Del. Laws, c. 497,
§
1;
59 Del. Laws, c. 547,
§
3;
61 Del. Laws, c. 56,
§
3;
65 Del. Laws, c. 494,
§
1;
66 Del. Laws, c. 269,
§§
33, 34;
70 Del. Laws, c. 186,
§
1;
71 Del. Laws, c. 285,
§§
8, 9;
75 Del. Laws, c. 392,
§
3;
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2014–2021 · leading case:
Phillips v. State (Del. 2014).
Phillips v. State (Del. 2014).
· cites it 3× “(5) On appeal, Phillips claims that: (i) his counsel was ineffective because he failed to discover that Phillips had a defense under 11 Del. C. § 762(d) and he incorrectly informed Phillips that the age of his half-sisters meant they could not consent to sexual activity with…”
State v. Rowan (Del. Super. Ct. 2017).
“Furthermore, Appointed Counsel thoroughly reviewed the record in this case and concluded that none of Rowan’s claims were 26 11Del. C. § 762(a). 15 State v. Rowan ID No.”
Simmers v. State of Delaware (D. Del. 2021).
“See 11 Del. Code § 762(c). Since an attorney does not provide ineffective assistance by failing to raise a meritless argument,5 the Superior Court did not unreasonably apply Strickland in denying the instant allegation.”
— 11 Del. C. § 762(a) — 1 case
State v. Rowan (Del. Super. Ct. 2017).
“Furthermore, Appointed Counsel thoroughly reviewed the record in this case and concluded that none of Rowan’s claims were 26 11Del. C. § 762(a). 15 State v. Rowan ID No.”
— 11 Del. C. § 762(c) — 1 case
Simmers v. State of Delaware (D. Del. 2021).
“See 11 Del. Code § 762(c). Since an attorney does not provide ineffective assistance by failing to raise a meritless argument,5 the Superior Court did not unreasonably apply Strickland in denying the instant allegation.”
— 11 Del. C. § 762(d) — 1 case
Phillips v. State (Del. 2014).
“(5) On appeal, Phillips claims that: (i) his counsel was ineffective because he failed to discover that Phillips had a defense under 11 Del. C. § 762(d) and he incorrectly informed Phillips that the age of his half-sisters meant they could not consent to sexual activity with…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.