COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Elder, Kelsey and McClanahan Argued at Alexandria, Virginia

JAMES ARCHER MARTIN MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 1966-04-4 JUDGE D. ARTHUR KELSEY SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF STAFFORD COUNTY Joseph E. Spruill, Jr., Judge Designate Robert J. Cunningham, Jr. (Whitestone, Brent, Young & Merril, P.C., on brief), for appellant. Josephine F. Whalen, Assistant Attorney General (Judith W. Jagdmann, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

The trial court found James Archer Martin gui lty of aggravated sexual battery of an eight-year-old boy in violation of Code § 18.2-67.3(A)(1). Martin a ppeals, claiming a right to an acquittal as a matter of law because he did not force the boy to engage in the sexual act and, in fact, the boy did so willingly. We disagree. Gi ven the child’s age, he could not legally consent

and thus constructive force ex isted as a matter of law.

I. Martin stipulated to the ev idence in the trial court. Martin, a fourteen-year-old boy, admitted asking the victim, an eight-year-old boy, to masturbate him. After Martin demonstrated what he wanted done, the victim manipulated Mart in’s penis until he ejaculated. No evidence

Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - suggested Martin used violence or any form of physical compulsion to overcome the victim’s will. The offense took place in February 2003.

On de novo appeal from the juvenile and domestic relations district court, the circuit court convicted Martin of aggr avated sexual battery under form er Code § 18.2-67.3(A)(1). On appeal to us, Martin admits he caused the eight- year-old boy to perform th e requested sexual act. That does not make him guilty of sexual abuse, Martin claims, because he did not force the boy to do it. The sexual encounter, he says, was entirely consensual.

II. Former Code § 18.2-67.3(A)(1) says nothing ab out force. In 2003, that statute provided merely that an “accused shall be guilty of aggravat ed sexual battery if he or she sexually abuses the complaining witness” and the “complaining witness is less than thirteen years of age . . . .” 1 The very next subsection, A(2), specifically requir ed force or its functional equivalent (threats, intimidation, mental incapacity, or physical helple ssness) for sexual abuse of a victim thirteen to fifteen years old. Despite the conspicuous ab sence of force from A(1) and its equally conspicuous presence in A(2), Martin nonetheles s argues that A(1) also required a showing of force. He reaches this conclusion by cons ulting a definitional statute, former Code § 18.2-67.10(6)(b), which defined “sexual abuse” generally to include cases where the accused “forces the complaining witness” to touch the accused’s genitals. We do not believe the General Assembly intended a general definitional statute to negate a purposefully crafted distinction set out in a specific statute outlining the elements of the offense. If we were to accept that conclu sion, we could only do so by violating longstanding

1 The General Assembly has amended severa l of Virginia’s sexual abuse statutes, including Code §§ 18.2-67.3 and 18.2-67.10, during the last two legislative sessions. We necessarily decide the case, howev er, based upon the statutory language in effect in 2003. All of our statutory quotes, therefore, reflect the texts applicable at the time of the offense.- 3 - principles of statutory construc tion. As has been often said, seemingly incongruent statutes “capable of coexistence” should be read harmonious ly so that each retains meaning and neither is rendered illusory. Seaton v. Commonwealth , 42 Va. App. 739, 758-59, 595 S.E.2d 9, 18-19 (2004) (citation omitted). “And to the extent such harmony cannot be achieved, the more specific statute takes precedence ove r the more general one.” Id. 2 Martin’s interpretation violates both maxims by renderi ng the specific legislative distin ction between A(1) and A(2) meaningless in this case through the use of a si ngle word in a general definitional provision. Instead, we believe the general definitional statute, former Code § 18.2-67.10(6)(b), and the specific statute setting forth the elem ents of Martin’s offense, former Code § 18.2-67.3(A)(1), can be read harmoniously

⎯ so that neither statute negates the other, and both retain a substantive meaning consis tent with established caselaw. In the context of sexual crimes, when analyz ing whether the “element of force” has been shown, “the inquiry is whether th e act or acts were effected with or without the victim’s

consent.” Gonzales v. Commonwealth , 45 Va. App. 375, 383, 611 S.E.2d 616, 620 (2005) ( en banc ) (quoting Jones v. Commonwealth , 219 Va. 983, 986, 252 S.E.2d 370, 372 (1979)). Absent legally recognized consent, “there is evidently, in the wrongful act itself, all the force which the law demands as an element of the crime.” Bailey v. Commonwealth , 82 Va. 107, 111 (1886). If

2 No Virginia case has ever suggested this ca non does not apply to criminal statutes (cf. post , at 12-13), and we can think of no principled basis for it not to, particularly given its recognized applicability to statutes governing the death penalty. See , e.g. , Powell v. Commonwealth , 261 Va. 512, 544, 552 S.E.2d 344, 362 (2001) (holding that the “established rule of statutory construction that when one st atute speaks to a subject generally and another deals with an element of that subject specificall y, the statutes will be ha rmonized, if possible, and if they conflict, the more specific statut e prevails” (citation omitted)); Thomas v. Commonwealth , 244 Va. 1, 22-23, 419 S.E.2d 606, 618 (1992). See generally Commonwealth ex rel. Va. Dep’t of Corrections v. Brown , 259 Va. 697, 706, 529 S.E.2d 96, 101 (2000); Griffin v. Commonwealth , 33 Va. App. 413, 429-30, 533 S.E.2d 653, 661 (2000).- 4 - no consent exists, therefore, “the use of for ce is shown by the act of non-consensual [sexual contact] itself.” Gonzales , 45 Va. App. at 383, 611 S.E.2d at 620. Virginia law has historically refused to recognize the consen t of a victim under the age of

fifteen

⎯ treating the child, as a matter of law, to be too emotionally and developmentally immature to engage in consensual sexual activitie s with another. Under that age, a child “cannot legally consent to the act, and constructive force is present , even though she does in fact

consent.” McBride v. Commonwealth , 44 Va. App. 526, 532, 605 S.E.2d 773, 775 (2004) (emphasis added) (quoti ng Buzzard v. Commonwealth , 134 Va. 641, 651, 114 S.E. 664, 666-67 (1922)). This constructive force concept has been a “fundamental tene t of Virginia law” governing sexual offenses. Id. As the Virginia Supr eme Court has explained: It is true that force, actual or constructive , is essential to the crime of rape, and that there is no force where the female is legally capable of giving her consent, and do es so. But in Virginia the age of consent is fifteen years. Under that age she cannot legally consent to the act, and constructive force is present , even though she does in fact consent. Stump v. Commonwealth , 137 Va. 804, 807, 119 S.E. 72, 73 (1923) (emphasis added); see also

Parsons v. Parker , 160 Va. 810, 814, 170 S.E. 1, 2 (1933). See generally Davis v.

Commonwealth , 186 Va. 936, 946, 45 S.E.2d 167, 171 (1947) (“Under the law two types of force, active and construc tive, are recognized.”). The legislature enacted the general defin itional statute, former Code § 18.2-67.10(6)(b), against the backdrop of an unbroken line of judi cial precedents recognizing the doctrine of constructive force in prosecutions of sexual offe nses against minors. “We assume legislative familiarity with Virginia case law when the legi slature enacts a statute which might impact upon

that law.” Dodson v. Potomac Mack Sales & Serv. , 241 Va. 89, 94, 400 S.E.2d 178, 180 (1991);

see also Waterman v. Halverson , 261 Va. 203, 207, 540 S.E.2d 867, 869 (2001). Nothing in former Code § 18.2-67.10(6)(b)

⎯ which defined “sexual abuse” generally

⎯ suggested the- 5 - legislature intended to discard th e constructive force doctrine or to limit the concept of force only to displays of actual violence, threats, or othe r forms of physical compulsion. The word “force” in this general definition statute, therefore, neces sarily retained the attri butes of both actual and

constructive force. Only with that background can former Code § 18.2-67.3(A)(1) be understood. To the

extent force is relevant at a ll to a subsection A(1) conviction

⎯ an assumption we make arguendo

⎯ it migrated into A(1) only through the ge neral definition of “sexual abuse” found in former Code § 18.2-67.10(6)(b). And to the de gree the general definition was imported into former Code § 18.2-67.3(A)(1)

⎯ which, unlike A(2), makes no mention of force

⎯ the imported definition carried with it principles of constructive force. Martin argues our understanding fails to defe r to the carefully chosen words of the statute. We think just the opposite is true. Martin’s interpretation wholly obliterates the distinction between subsections A(1) and A(2), rendering it without any conceivable meaning in

this case. If force means only actual force, then the absence of force as an element of the A(1) crime and its presence as an element of the A(2) crime would make no sense. On the other hand, it was entirely sensible for the legislature to empl oy the concept of construc tive force in A(1) for victims younger than thirteen, while requiring a showing of act ual force or its functional equivalent for a violation of A(2) for vi ctims between thirteen and fifteen. Cf. Johnson v.

Commonwealth , 5 Va. App. 529, 534, 365 S.E.2d 237, 240 ( 1988). No other interpretation preserves the legislative distinction drawn between former subsections A(1) and A(2). Martin also contends that our reasoning de fies the canon requiring that ambiguous penal statutes be strictly construed. We find this protest circular, beca use the alleged ambiguity arises only if we were to accept his misinterpretation of the statute. Quoting Ju stice Story, the Virginia Supreme Court has explained:- 6 - Speaking of penal statutes, Mr. Justice Story, in U.S. v. Winn , 3 Sumner 209, says: “Where a word is used in a statute, which has various known significations, I kno w of no rule that requires the court to adopt one in preference to another, simply because it is more restrained, if the objects of the statute equally apply to the largest and broadest sense of the [w ord]. In short, it appears to me that the proper course in all these cases is to search out and follow the true intention of the Legislatur e, and to adopt that sense of the words which harmonizes best with the context, and promotes in the fullest manner the apparent policy and objects of the Legislature.” Northrop & Wickham v. Richmond , 105 Va. 335, 339-40, 53 S.E. 962, 963 (1906). 3 Put another way, the canon of strict construc tion of penal statutes does not “require magnified emphasis upon a single ambiguous word in order to give it a me aning contradictory to the fair import of the whole remaining language,” United States v. Brown , 333 U.S. 18, 25-26 (1948)

⎯ which is exactly what Martin’s disc ordant interpretation does.

III. We reject Martin’s argument that the Commonwealth did no t prove its case against him for aggravated sexual battery under former Code § 18.2-67.3(A)(1). The eight-year-old victim could not have legally consented, and thus, c onstructive force existed as a matter of law.

Affirmed.

3 No canon of statutory construction “require s that a penal statute be strained and distorted in order to exclude conduct clea rly intended to be within its scope

⎯ nor does any rule require that the act be given the ‘na rrowest meaning.’” United States v. Raynor , 302 U.S. 540, 552 (1938). So “whatever may be said of the ru le of strict construc tion, it cannot provide a substitute for common sense, precedent, and legi slative history.” United States v. Standard Oil Co. , 384 U.S. 224, 225-26 (1966); see also United States v. Brown , 333 U.S. 18, 25-26 (1948) (“The canon in favor of strict construction is not an inexor able command to override common sense and evident statutory purpose.”).- 7 - Elder, J., dissenting: The version of Code § 18.2-67.3(A) (1) in effect at the time of th e acts at issue, as further defined by Code § 18.2-67.10(6)(b), required proof that the victim’s touching of the accused occurred because of some “force[]” exerted by the accused. 4 I believe basic principles of statutory construction compel th e conclusion that proof of “cons tructive” force based solely on the age of the victim was insuffi cient to prove the requisite for ce under the applicable version of the statutes. Thus, I would re verse appellant’s conviction and dismiss the complaint, and I respectfully dissent. The version of Code § 18.2-67.3 in effect on February 28, 2003, when the offense at issue in this case took place, provided in relevant part as follows: A. An accused shall be guilty of aggravated sexual battery if he or she sexually abuses the complaining witness, and 1. The complaining witness is less than thirteen years of age, or 2. The act is accomplished against the will of the complaining witness, by force, thre at or intimidation or through the use of the complaining witness’ s mental incapacity or physical helplessness, and a. The complaining witness is at least thirteen but less than fifteen years of age, or b. The accused causes serious bodily or mental injury to the complaining witness, or

4 Effective July 1, 2004, the General Assembly amended Code §§ 18.2-67.3 and 18.2-67.10. 2004 Va. Acts, chs. 741, 843. As a result of those amendments, a conviction for aggravated sexual battery of a complaining witness less than thirteen years old no longer requires proof of force. 2004 Va. Acts ch. 741. “If th e complaining witness is under the age of 13,” aggravated sexual battery may be proved by evidence that “the accused causes or assists the complaining witness to touch the accused’s, the witness’s own, or another person’s intimate parts or material directly covering such intimate parts.” Id. (emphasis added).- 8 - c. The accused uses or threatens to use a dangerous weapon. 1993 Va. Acts, ch. 590 (emphasis added). Here, because the victim was less than thirt een years old and the evidence did not involve injury to the victim or the use of or threat to use a dangerous weapon, see Code § 18.2-67.3(A)(2), appellant could be convict ed only under subsection (A)(1) of Code § 18.2-67.3. A conviction under either part of subs ection (A) required proof that appellant’s acts toward the eight-year-old victim constituted “sex ual abuse,” defined in Code § 18.2-67.10(6) as an act committed with the intent to sexually molest, arouse, or gratify any person, where: a. The accused intentionally touches the complaining witness’s intimate parts or material directly covering such intimate parts; b. The accused forces the complaining witness to touch the accused’s, the witness’s own, or a nother person’s intimate parts or material directly covering such intimate parts; or c. The accused forces another person to touch the complaining witness’s intimate parts or material directly covering such intimate parts. 1994 Va. Acts, ch. 568. Thus, Code § 18.2-67.3(A) sp ecifically incorporated as an element of the offenses it proscribed that the behavior cons tituted sexual abuse, defi ned without regard to the age of the victim. It was not disputed that appe llant acted “with the intent to sexually molest, arouse, or gratify any person,” the first elem ent of sexual abuse, and the onl y type of touching established by the evidence was the complaining witness’s touc hing of appellant’s penis. Thus, we must examine whether the evidence proved, as requi red by subsection (b) of Code § 18.2-67.10(6), that “[t]he accused force[d] the complaining witness to touch the accused’s . . . intimate parts or material directly covering such intimate parts.” Code § 18.2-67.10(6)(b) (emphasis added).- 9 - The majority holds that constructive for ce was proved based solely on the youth of the victim and that this proof was sufficient to support appellant’s convic tion for violating Code § 18.2-67.3(A)(1). I believe basic principles of st atutory construction compel a different result. “‘[T]he province of construction is wholly within the domain of ambiguity, and that which is plain needs no interpretation. ’” Barnett v. D.L. Bromwell, Inc. , 6 Va. App. 30, 34, 366 S.E.2d 271, 273 (1988) (quoting Winston v. City of Richmond , 196 Va. 403, 407-08, 83 S.E.2d 728, 731 (1954)). “[W]hen the General Assembly has used words that have a plain meaning, courts cannot give those words a construction that amounts to hol ding that the General Assembly meant something other than that which it actually expressed. ” Lee County v. Town of St.

Charles , 264 Va. 344, 348, 568 S.E.2d 680, 682 (2002). When bound by the plain meaning of the language used, we are not permitted “to add or to subtract from the words used in the statute.” Posey v. Commonwealth , 123 Va. 551, 553, 96 S.E. 771, 771 (1918). “We must . . . assume . . . the legislature chose, with care, the words it used when it enacted the relevant statute,” Barr v. Town & Country Properties, Inc. , 240 Va. 292, 295, 396 S.E.2d 672, 674 (1990), and it is our duty “to gi ve reasonable effect to ev ery word,” Jones v. Conwell , 227 Va. 176, 180-81, 314 S.E.2d 61, 64 (1984); Moyer v. Commonwealth , 33 Va. App. 8, 35, 531 S.E.2d 580, 593 (2000) (en banc). Further, “[w]hen a penal statute is unclear, th e statute must be stri ctly construed against

the Commonwealth and in favor of an accused’s lib erty, and the accused is entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt concer ning the statute’s constructio n.” Waldrop v. Commonwealth , 255 Va. 210, 214, 495 S.E.2d 822, 825 (1998). Before the accused can be punished, however offensive his conduct, “‘his case must be plainly and unmistakably within th e statute.’” Harward

v. Commonwealth , 229 Va. 363, 365, 330 S.E.2d 89, 90 (1985) (quoting United States v. Lacher , 134 U.S. 624, 628, 10 S. Ct. 625, 626, 33 L. Ed. 1080, 1083 (1890)).- 10 - The plain language of subsect ion (b) of Code § 18.2-67.10(6) requires proof of some showing of “force” employed by the accused toward the victim to effect the proscribed touching. Where the criminal act alleged is that either the victim touched the accused, see Code § 18.2-67.10(6)(b), or a third party touched the victim, see Code § 18.2-67.10(6)(c), the General Assembly required proof that the “accused force[d] ” the touching. Code § 18.2-67.10(6)(b), (c) (emphasis added). The language of subsection (6)(a ), by contrast, does not require proof of force where the act establishing the sexual abuse is the “accused[’s] intentional[] touch[ing of] the complaining witness’s intimate parts or material directly covering such intimate parts.” Code § 18.2-67.10(6)(a). In enacting s ubsection (6)(a), (b) and (c), the General Assembly clearly

demonstrated that it knew how to define certain types of sexual touching without regard to whether they involved force or consent. Principles of statutory construction prevent us from holding this element of force is established by proof of “construc tive” force-- that the victim was beneath the common law age of consent. Subsection (A)(1) of Code § 18.2-67.3 already contains a requirement that the victim who has been “force[d]” to touch the accused must be less than thir teen years of age in order for the behavior to be punishable under that subsection. As set out above, under settled principles of statutory construction, we must try to give effect to every word in the statute. Because these statutes are penal in nature, we may not c onstrue the requirement of force in Code § 18.2-67.10(6)(b), as incorporated into Code § 18.2- 67.3(A) by reference, to be proved in every instance by the very same evidence used to establish an expre ss element of Code § 18.2-67.3(A)--that the victim be “le ss than thirteen years of age, ” beneath the age of consent. A comparison of the language in the a pplicable version of Code §§ 18.2-67.3 and 18.2-67.10(6) to the language in Code § 18.2-63 supports this result. In enacting Code § 18.2-63, the General Assembly criminalized th e carnal knowledge of a child and provided- 11 - expressly that “a child under the age of thirteen years shall not be considered a consenting child” “[f]or purposes of this section.” The Gene ral Assembly included no such provision in the version of Code § 18.2-67.3 or Code § 18.2-67.10 at issue here. 5 When the General Assembly amended Code § 18.2-67.10(6) after the offense at issue, it removed the requirement of force in the case of a victim under the ag e of thirteen, showing it knew how to make such a distinction but had previously failed to do so with regard to aggravated sexual ba ttery of children under thirteen. The General Assembly’s 2004 am endment of Code §§ 18.2-67.3 and 18.2-67.10 makes plain its intent to effect a substant ive change in the statute, see, e.g. , Waldrop , 255 Va. at 214, 495 S.E.2d at 825 (“[T]here is a presumption that a recodified statute does not make substantive changes in the former statute unless a contrary inte nt plainly appears in the recodified statute.”), so as to clearly include a sexua l touching involving a child under th e age of thirteen in the realm of statutory crimes for which the presence of for ce or consent is irrelevant, much like statutory rape. Prior to that amendment, however, the portion of the statute under which appellant was convicted, strictly construed in fa vor of appellant’s liberty, required proof of some type of force and was not satisfied by proof me rely of the victim’s young age.

5 The majority relies on constructive force principles applicable at common law and attempts, without citation to contro lling authority, to apply these prin ciples to all sexual offenses involving minors. This case involves a statut ory offense necessitating the application of accepted principles of statutory construction, to which I believe the majority gives insufficient deference. Where a statute proscribes certain behavior based on both the age of the victim and the fact that the act was accomplished using forc e, it would be incongruous to conclude that proving the victim was beneath the common-law age of consent also satisfied the express requirement of proving force. See, e.g. , McBride v. Commonwealth , 44 Va. App., 526, 531, 605 S.E.2d 773, 775 (2004) (“By statute, an adult havi ng sexual intercourse wi th a child thirteen years of age or older but under fifteen years of age either commits rape, if the act is accomplished by force, see Code § 18.2-61, or commits car nal knowledge, if the act is committed without the use of force, see Code § 18.2-63.”). I do not believe the result should be any different in this case simply because the age requirement is contained in Code § 18.2-67.3(A)(1) and the force requirement is cont ained in Code § 18.2-67.10(6)’s definition of sexual abuse.- 12 - Further, any ambiguity in the statutes comes into play only when one compares the offenses proscribed by subsection (A)(1) of th e aggravated battery st atute, Code § 18.2-67.3, with those proscribed by subsection (A)(2). In applying subsection (A )(1) of the aggravated sexual battery statute, we may not ignore the elem ent of force in the definition of sexual abuse in subsections (b) and (c) of Code § 18.2-67.10(6) simply because th e inclusion of that element may overlap with the element of force containe d in subsection (A)(2) of the aggravated sexual battery statute. The legislature’s failure to more clearly delineate the differences in the two categories of aggravated sexual battery is ambiguous at best and cannot be used to save this

conviction. We must construe Code § 18.2-67.3(A)(1) and Code § 18.2-67.10(6)(b) in favor of appellant’s liberty, by requiring proof under the facts of this case that the complaining witness’ touching of appellant’s peni s was accomplished by some force exerted by the accused. Finally, I believe the majority misapplies the principle that, to the extent two statutes on the same subject cannot be harmonized, “the mo re specific statute takes precedence over the more general one.” Seaton v. Commonwealth , 42 Va. App. 739, 758-59, 595 S.E.2d 9, 18-19 (2004); see also Powell v. Commonwealth , 261 Va. 512, 544, 552 S.E.2d 344, 362 (2001);

Thomas v. Commonwealth , 244 Va. 1, 22-23, 419 S.E.2d 606, 618 (1992). Seaton , Powell , and

Thomas , relied upon by the majority, did not involve a c onflict in two statutes required to be read together in order to define the elements of a criminal offense. See Seaton , 42 Va. App. at 758-59, 595 S.E.2d at 18-19 (applying principle in context of reso lving question about admissibility of evidence in penalty phase); see also Powell , 261 Va. at 544, 552 S.E.2d at 362 (applying principle in penalty rath er than guilt phase, where court had “already determined that the conviction underlying [the] death sentence [woul d] be reversed,” to conclude that provision of Code § 18.2-10 permitting punishment of death, life imprisonment, or life imprisonment plus a fine, controlled over Code § 19.2-264.4(D), which se t out language to be us ed in jury verdict- 13 - form and included as only punishment options a sentence of life imprisonment or death; and holding defendant was entitled to “jury verdict forms with senten cing options that accurately and expressly correspond to the trial court’ s sentencing instruction”); Thomas , 244 Va. at 22-23, 419 S.E.2d at 618 (also applying principle in penalty phase). Where penal statutes defining the

elements of a criminal offense conflict and ca nnot be harmonized, we must apply the paramount principle that penal statutes must be stri ctly construed against the Commonwealth, see Waldrop , 255 Va. at 214, 495 S.E.2d at 825. The fact th at “sexual abuse” is defined in Code § 18.2-67.10(6) and incorporated by reference into Code § 18.2-67.3(A)’s definition of aggravated sexual battery does not justify the co nclusion Code § 18.2-67.10(6) is a more general statute over which the language of Code § 18.2-6 7.3(A) takes precedence. We may not simply ignore a clear element of the cr ime of aggravated sexual battery under the guise of statutory

construction. Cf. Coleman v. City of Richmond , 5 Va. App. 459, 466, 364 S.E.2d 239, 243 (A penal statute is unconstitutionally void-for-vagueness if it does not “‘give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opport unity to know what is prohibited so that he may act accordingly.’” (quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford , 408 U.S. 104, 108-09, 92 S. Ct. 2294, 2298-99, 33 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1972)), reh’g denied , 6 Va. App. 296, 368 S.E.2d 298 (1988). For these reasons, I would hold the version of Code § 18.2-67.3(A)(1) in effect at the time of the acts at issue, as further defined by Code § 18.2-67.10(6)(b), required proof that the victim’s touching of the accused occurred because of some “force[]” exerted by the accused. Basic principles of statutory construction co mpel the conclusion that, however offensive Martin’s conduct, proof of “constructive” force ba sed on the age of the victim was insufficient to prove the requisite force under th e applicable version of the statutes. Thus, I would reverse appellant’s conviction and di smiss the complaint, and I respectfully dissent.