Case Title: North Dakota v. Truelove

Citation: 

Docket Number: 20170043

State: north-dakota

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 2017-12-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH
DAKOTA 2017 ND 283State of North
Dakota, Plaintiff and Appelleev.Michael Allen Truelove, Defendant and
AppellantNo. 20170043Appeal from the District Court of Cass
County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable John
Charles Irby, Judge.AFFIRMED.Opinion of the Court by Tufte, Justice.Tristan J. Van de Streek (argued) and Leah J. Viste (on brief), Assistant State's Attorneys,
Fargo, North Dakota, for plaintiff and appellee.Anna Dearth (argued), third-year law
student, under the Rule on Limited
Practice of Law by Law Students, and Samuel A. Gereszek (appeared), East Grand Forks,
Minnesota, for defendant and appellant.State v.
TrueloveNo. 20170043Tufte,
Justice.[¶1] Michael Truelove appeals from a criminal
judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of gross sexual imposition ("GSI"), terrorizing,
interfering with a telephone during an emergency call, and aggravated assault. Truelove contests
only the GSI conviction. We affirm, concluding there is sufficient evidence in the record to
support the GSI conviction.I[¶2] Truelove met
HFP at Dempsey's, a bar in downtown Fargo. HFP was working as a cocktail server, and
Truelove was a patron that night (although he was also employed by Dempsey's as a custodian).
They had not interacted prior to that night. HFP wrote her phone number on Truelove's pizza
box. Truelove left, but after they exchanged a few text messages, he decided to come back to
Dempsey's to meet her. HFP's shift ended, and the two of them consumed alcohol at
Dempsey's.[¶3] Toward the end of the night, HFP offered
Truelove a ride home. The two of them walked to HFP's car, kissed, and drove to Truelove's
apartment in South Fargo. HFP accompanied Truelove into his studio apartment. Once in the
apartment, Truelove went into the bathroom, and HFP went to lie down on the mattress. After
this point, the testimony of HFP and Truelove differed.[¶4] HFP
testified a naked Truelove came out of the bathroom and was in "attack mode"; Truelove got on
top of her; she told him to get off her and that she wanted to go to bed; he "ripped" her skirt and
underwear off her; he ripped her shirt open, exposing her breasts; he grabbed her breasts; she felt
his penis up against her vagina; he choked her; she called 911 and yelled to the operator for help;
he "ripped" the phone from her hand and threw it aside; he told her that she "wasn't going to
leave there alive"; he ripped out a chunk of her hair; and when she unlocked the door, the police
officers pulled him off of her.[¶5] Truelove testified the lights
were off when he exited the bathroom; he took his clothes off once he left the bathroom and saw
her on his mattress looking at him; he lay down next to her and began kissing her; he pulled her
skirt and underwear down; he went to insert his penis, but after she told him no, he stopped; he
resumed kissing her and went to take her shirt off, but she got defensive and kicked him in the
chin; he slapped her and a scuffle ensued, with both of them having their hair pulled out. He also
testified that he didn't intentionally choke her, but did put her in an arm bar to prevent her from
running out of the apartment naked. HFP got free, unlocked the door, and exited the
apartment.[¶6] At trial, a jury found Truelove guilty of GSI,
terrorizing, interfering with a telephone during an emergency call, and aggravated assault.II[¶7] Truelove argues there was insufficient
evidence to sustain his GSI conviction. In reviewing sufficiency of the evidence challenges, we
review the record to determine whether there is sufficient evidence that could allow a jury to
draw a reasonable inference in favor of the conviction. State v. Kinsella, 2011 ND 88, ¶ 7, 796 N.W.2d 678 (quoting
State v. Wanner, 2010 ND 121, ¶ 9, 784 N.W.2d 143). "The
defendant bears the burden of showing the evidence reveals no reasonable inference of guilt
when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict." Id. We do not reweigh conflicting evidence
or judge the credibility of witnesses. Id.[¶8]
Truelove was found guilty of GSI under N.D.C.C.
§ 12.1-20-03, which states, in pertinent part:A person
who engages in a sexual act with another, or who causes another to engage in a sexual
act, is guilty of an offense if . . . [t]hat person compels the victim to
submit by force or by threat of imminent death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping, to
be inflicted on any human being. N.D.C.C.
§ 12.1-20-03(1)(a) (emphasis added). A sexual act is defined, in relevant part, as
"contact between the penis and the vulva . . . [which] occurs upon
penetration, however slight. Emission is not required." N.D.C.C.
§ 12.1-20-02(4). Force is defined as physical action. N.D.C.C.
§ 12.1-01-04(10). Truelove argues that penetration did not occur and that there
was no use of force prior to or during any attempted sexual intercourse.[¶9] There was evidence sufficient to support a reasonable inference of
penetration. HFP was asked by defense counsel on cross-examination, "And in your recollection,
you remember Mr. Truelove inserting his penis into the opening of your vagina?" HFP
responded, "Yeah. In the inner labia and up against the opening." HFP also stated on direct
examination that she was familiar with the female genitalia. Her response on cross-examination
was consistent with her response on direct when she stated that the "head [of his penis] was
within my inner labia up against my vaginal opening." The "sexual act" element of § 1
2.1-20-03(1)(a) requires only "slight" penetration. N.D.C.C.
§ 12.1-20-02(4). Thus, because the labia is a part of the vulva and testimony indicated
Truelove's penis was "within" HFP's inner labia, there was sufficient evidence on which the jury
could conclude penetration occurred.[¶10] Truelove argues that
he did not use force until after any alleged sexual act occurred. Section
12.1-20-03(1)(a) requires that Truelove compelled HFP to submit by force to the sexual act.
Under a plain language reading of the statute, to "compel" a victim to "submit," the use of force
must be either prior to or during the sexual act, but not after. See State v. Vantreece, 2007 ND 126, ¶ 18, 736 N.W.2d 428 ("It is the
force or physical action by the defendant which must 'compel' the victim to 'submit' to a sex act
for a crime to be committed under N.D.C.C.
§ 12.1-20-03(1)(a)."). HFP testified that prior to penetration, Truelove laid on
top of her against her will, "ripped" her skirt and underwear off her, ripped her shirt open, and
grabbed her breasts. Cf. id. at ¶¶ 26, 28. (reversing the GSI conviction after
concluding that the defendant "did not exert any force to hold [the alleged victim who was
pretending to sleep] down or to restrain her from moving"). HFP testified that throughout the
incident, she told Truelove to stop. She attempted to get him off her, which was demonstrated by
her kick to Truelove's chin. After HFP kicked Truelove and she became more resistant, Truelove
began choking her. The record is unclear whether Truelove choked HFP before or after all sexual
contact stopped. To support the verdict, we must only conclude there was sufficient evidence of
violence prior to penetration to show that Truelove used force to compel HFP to submit. There
was.[¶11] The record contains sufficient evidence to support a
reasonable inference by the jury in favor of conviction.III[¶12] We affirm the criminal judgment.[¶13] Jerod E. TufteDaniel J.
CrothersLisa Fair McEversJon J. JensenGerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.