Opinion ID: 4123136
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Count Three: Aggravated Sexual Abuse

Text: In the indictment, the government charged LaVictor with “penetrat[ing] the anal opening of C.B.” (R. 1, Indictment, PageID # 3). LaVictor now argues that the government failed to establish an anal injury or penetration. However, the record belies this argument. First, Christine Simpson, a nurse, testified that C.B. told her that LaVictor may have used a wine bottle and “put it in both areas. [The witness] asked her, you know, what she meant by both areas . . . did he put it in her, you know, bottom or anal region? And she said yes.”(R. 153, Tr., PageID # 1856). Further testimony stated that C.B. expressed concern about her rectal area because “she was worried about having a bowel movement. [C.B.] said there was also some trauma to her rectum area, and she was scared it was going to hurt when she had a bowel movement.” (Id. at 2008). And finally, C.B. admitted on direct examination at trial that she was penetrated anally. Despite LaVictor’s assertion that the only evidence of anal penetration comes from improper evidence, this is not the case. Nor is there a need, as LaVictor claims, for the government to show an anal injury. Under the charged offense, penetration is sufficient. And the direct testimony of witnesses coupled with C.B.’s personal statement is more than sufficient for a jury to conclude that anal penetration took place.