Opinion ID: 2622875
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the District Court Err in Failing to Define the Term Vaginal Opening in Response to a Request from the Jury?

Text: The Defendant was convicted of statutory rape, which Idaho Code § 18-6101(1) defines as the penetration, however slight, of the . . . vaginal opening with the perpetrator's penis accomplished with a female under any one (1) of the following circumstances: 1. Where the female is under the age of eighteen (18) years. The district court instructed the jury as to the crime of rape in the wording of the statute. After deliberating for about one hour, the jury sent a note to the judge asking the following question: Does there have to be penetration, ever so slightly, beyond the hymen to constitute penetration? What point of the anatomy (female genitals) does the tip of the penis have to pass (ever so slightly) to constitute penetration? The parts we are concerned with are the labia and the hymen. Over objection from Defendant's counsel, the district court refused to give the jury further clarification as to the meaning of the term vaginal opening. The court felt that doing so would constitute a comment upon the evidence and rendering a medical opinion. The Defendant contends that the court committed reversible error in failing to further define vaginal opening in response to the jury's question. The district court's decision whether or not to give further instructions in response to jurors' questions is discretionary. State v. Sheahan, 139 Idaho 267, 282, 77 P.3d 956, 971 (2003). In this case, the State called a physician who had performed a gynecological examination of the victim on the day after the rape. As part of that examination, he had taken photographs of the victim's vaginal area with a colposcope. He testified that the photographs showed injuries to the victim's hymen and to areas outside the vaginal opening which were caused by forced sexual penetration. During his testimony, he identified for the jury various parts of the female anatomy including the vaginal opening, the hymen, and the labia. On cross-examination, the physician opined that no one would want to undergo the trauma necessary to inflict those injuries. In response, the Defendant called a physician who testified that the photographs did not show injury to the victim's hymen and that the other injuries did not show either force or the lack of consent. They could have been caused by vigorous consensual sexual activity or the lack of lubrication. The physician called by the Defendant testified that the labia were external to the vaginal opening, as were the injuries suffered by the victim. The defense physician also testified that the photographs and injuries were not evidence of penetration of the vaginal opening, nor did they rule out such penetration and they were not evidence of force, nor did they show lack of force. There was no conflict between the physicians as to where the vaginal opening was, and the Defendant conceded on appeal that their testimony was accurate in that regard. In addition, the victim testified that the Defendant had penetrated her vagina with his penis and that she felt it in her vagina. A Blackfoot police officer testified that he questioned the Defendant during the early morning hours of December 27, 2002. The Defendant stated that the victim took a fancy to him, but he told her she was only seventeen [1] and that was a line he was not going to cross. He said that later that night one thing led to another and that he had sexual. intercourse with the victim, but did not ejaculate inside her. When the officer asked the Defendant what he meant by sexual intercourse, the, Defendant answered that he inserted his penis into the victim's vagina. The police officer's testimony was neither impeached nor challenged, and the Defendant did not testify. The Defendant also gave a written statement in which he stated that after the victim followed him up the stairs, we proceeded to have intercourse. His semen was also found on her panties and jeans. In summary, two physicians explained for the jury where the vaginal opening was and where the labia and hymen were in relation to the vaginal opening. [2] The victim testified that the Defendant penetrated her vagina with his penis, and the Defendant admitted to a police officer that he had done so. Under these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to instruct the jury further on the definition of vaginal opening.