Utah Code » Title 76, Chapter 2 — Principles of Criminal Responsibility; part 76-2-1 — Culpability Generally
Utah Code

Utah Code § 76-2-102 (2026)

Culpable mental state required -- Strict liability

✓ laws through the 2026 General Session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Every offense not involving strict liability shall require a culpable mental state, and when the definition of the offense does not specify a culpable mental state and the offense does not involve strict liability, intent, knowledge, or recklessness shall suffice to establish criminal responsibility. An offense shall involve strict liability if the statute defining the offense clearly indicates a legislative purpose to impose criminal responsibility for commission of the conduct prohibited by the statute without requiring proof of any culpable mental state.

Amended by Chapter 90, 1983 General Session

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 82 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: State v. Martinez, 2000 UT App 320, 14 P.3d 114.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Martinez, 2000 UT App 320, 14 P.3d 114. · cites it 35× “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-102 (1999). A crime is one of strict liability when "the statute defining the offense clearly indicates a legislative purpose to impose criminal responsibility for commission of the conduct prohibited by the statute without requiring proof of any…”
State v. Honie, 2002 UT 4, 57 P.3d 977. · cites it 12× “" Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-102 (1999). [4] Article I, section 24 of the Utah Constitution states, "All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation.”
State v. Geukgeuzian, 2004 UT 16, 86 P.3d 742. · cites it 6× “” Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-102 (1999). 4 . The court of appeals determined that the trial court's failure to include a separate culpable mental state apart from the language in the witness tampering statute resulted in manifest injustice as a matter of law and reversed…”
State v. Martinez, 2002 UT 80, 52 P.3d 1276. · cites it 6× “Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-102 (2001). We must therefore determine whether the legislature intended to impose eriminal liability for unlawful sexual activity with a minor without requiring proof that the defendant intended to engage in sexual intercourse with a fourteen or…”
State v. Powell, 2020 UT App 63, 463 P.3d 705. · cites it 4× “” Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-102 (LexisNexis 2012).”
State v. Jimenez, 2012 UT 41, 284 P.3d 640. · cites it 5× “We held that the language of the statute did not "clearly indicate 'a legislative purpose to impose strict liability' as required by § 76-2-102." 11 ET-ton also demonstrates the legislature's ability to impose strict liability for an offense, as after the defendant's conviction…”
State v. Popp, 2019 UT App 173, 453 P.3d 657. · cites it 2× “The instructions Popp assails apprised the jury that the State bore the burden of proving, “beyond a reasonable doubt,” that (1) Popp “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly committed a sexual act with F.”
Ellsworth Paulsen Constr. Co. v. 51-SPR-L.L.C., 2008 UT 28, 183 P.3d 248. · cites it 6× “1 29a As noted by the court of appeals, any potential confusion about an intent requirement is cured by referencing Utah Code section 76-2-102 (2008), which provides: Every offense not involving strict liability shall require a culpable mental state, and when the definition of…”
Due South, Inc. v. Dep't of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 2008 UT 71, 197 P.3d 82. · cites it 5× “65 Part of the court's analysis compared subsection (2) to subsection (1), explaining that because subsection (1) "does not specifically state the requisite mens rea for the offense, the mens rea is supplied by Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-102 (1995)." 66 1 46 In summary, section…”
State v. Bird, 2015 UT 7, 345 P.3d 1141. · cites it 4× “” Utah Code section 76-2-102 explains that “intent, knowledge, or recklessness shall suffice to establish criminal responsibility” “when the definition of the offense does not specify a culpable mental state and the offense does not involve strict liability.” Thus, intent,…”
State v. Fontana, 680 P.2d 1042 (Utah 1984). · cites it 3× “Since depraved indifference second degree murder does not expressly specify a particular mental state, the culpable mental state required by the statute must be as provided in § 76-2-102: “Every offense not involving strict liability shall require a culpable mental state, and…”
State v. Elton, 680 P.2d 727 (Utah 1984). · cites it 4× “[3] At the time in dispute, § 76-2-102 stated: *729 Every offense not involving strict liability shall require a culpable mental state, and when the definition of the offense does not specify a culpable mental state, intent, knowledge, or recklessness shall suffice to establish…”
Show all 82 citing cases →
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.