1. Two fathers were found guilty of allowing their minor children to drive snowmobiles in violation of state statutes regulating off-highway recreational vehicles. 2. The issue is whether liability can be imposed on parents under RSA 626: 8 II(b), a statute regarding parental responsibility. 3. The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that no liability can be imposed on the parents under this statute. The statute was not intended to impose criminal liability solely due to parental status, as that would violate due process under the New Hampshire Constitution.

1. HaroldSowardsII
CJ 322, Tu/Th 9:30
9/30/15
State v. Akers
400 A. 2d 38 (NH 1979)
1. Facts
 Fathersof two minorsare foundguiltyforlettingthemdrive snowmobiles
 TheyviolatedRSA 269-C:26-aII (operatingonpublicway),RSA 269-C:26-aIII(reasonable
speed),andRSA 269-C:24- IV (operationandlicensingof OHRV) whichalsoprovided
that parents/guardiansresume the responsibilityforanydamage incurredforanyone
underthe age of 18
 Pleaguiltyandwaive the appeal of anew trial to SuperiorCourtand all questionsof the
laware reservedandtransferredbythe DistrictCourtto the NH Supreme Court
 The fathersobjectto the constitutionalityof the parentresponsibilitystatute
 The NH Supreme Courtsustainsthe objection
2. Issue
Can liabilitybe imposedonparentsunderthe provisionof RSA 626: 8 II(b)?
3. Holdings
No,sustained
4. Reasoning
The provisionof RSA 626:8 II (b) comesfromthe Model Penal Code Stat.204 (2)(b) whichrelates
to corporationsandits employees.Itwasnot intendedtoimpose liabilityonone because of the
parentstatus.Anyattemptto impose acriminal liabilityonparentsbecause theyoccupythe
parent-statusoffendsthe Due Processof the NHstate constitution.Parenthoodcan’tbe made a
crime and use a reference fromGenesisintheirpoint.Thisstatute (RSA 269 C:24 IV) punishes
parenthoodanditis forbiddentodosounderNH Const.Pt. 1 Art.15.