Opinion ID: 2444462
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Compulsion

Text: [¶ 8] The victim testified that Rackliffe forced him to submit to a sexual assault. Absent competence problems with a victim's testimony that did not exist in this case, the uncorroborated testimony of a victim is sufficient to sustain a verdict for a sex crime. See State v. Harper, 675 A.2d 495, 497 (Me.1996). Additionally, [t]he proof need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, provided the record as a whole supports a conclusion of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Moores, 2009 ME 102, ¶ 10, 982 A.2d 318, 320 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 9] A person is guilty of gross sexual assault if that person engages in a sexual act with another person and ... [t]he other person submits as a result of compulsion.... 17-A M.R.S. § 253(1)(A). Sexual act means, as relevant to this case, Any act between 2 persons involving direct physical contact between the genitals of one and the mouth or anus of the other, or direct physical contact between the genitals of one and the genitals of the other. 17-A M.R.S. § 251(1)(C)(1) (2009). Compulsion means: [T]he use of physical force, a threat to use physical force or a combination thereof that makes a person unable to physically repel the actor or produces in that person a reasonable fear that death, serious bodily injury or kidnapping might be imminently inflicted upon that person or another human being. Compulsion as defined in this paragraph places no duty upon the victim to resist the actor. 17-A M.R.S. § 251(1)(E) (2009). [¶ 10] Proof of compulsion properly focuses on the acts of the perpetrator of a sexual assault. As the statute indicates, the State need not prove that the victim cried out or physically resisted the assault to prove compulsion. On this record, the jury could have found each element of the crime of gross sexual assault proved beyond a reasonable doubt, including the element of compulsion. Accordingly, the court did not err in denying Rackliffe's motion for a judgment of acquittal. See, e.g., State v. Maizeroi, 2000 ME 187, ¶¶ 16, 18, 760 A.2d 638, 643, 644 (holding that sufficient evidence existed on the element of compulsion when there was no evidence that the victim initially consented to the sexual act; she said no and stop and continued to mov[e] around, even though she did not or could not physically attempt to resist the perpetrator); State v. Whitten, 667 A.2d 849, 851 (Me. 1995) (holding that circumstantial evidence,  including the fact that the victim felt fearful of the perpetrator, made a statement to police and sought medical treatment, and was distraught, supported finding of compulsion); State v. Rosa, 575 A.2d 727, 729 (Me.1990) (rejecting the argument that victim's testimony that she was really nervous and scared was insufficient evidence of fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury for purposes of the element of compulsion). The entry is: Judgment affirmed.