Opinion ID: 1796115
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The position of the victim's body

Text: ¶ 80. The majority cites the photographs of the position of the victim's body as physical evidence that an attempted rape occurred. However, based on the above definitions, I remain convinced that these powerful images are still not direct evidence of an attempted rape. Furthermore, their probative value even as circumstantial evidence is questionable. ¶ 81. The photographs show the victim's body lying face up on the house floor. Naked from the waist down, the victim's legs are spread in a position that the prosecution's expert best described as inconsistent with consensual sexual activity. Despite the emotional value of the photographs, they lack evidentiary value. To be correctly described as direct evidence, the position that the photographs depicted should prove an essential fact without inference or presumption. ¶ 82. The position of the body is essential to the majority's holding in this case. However, Powers indicated that he moved the body post mortem. In addition, despite the fact that the victim is lying face up with the back of her head against the floor, the evidence clearly showed that she suffered three gunshot wounds to the back of the head. Simply stated, this is not the position that the body would have been in during the alleged attempted rape. Therefore, the position is not directly, or circumstantially, probative of an attempted rape. A gigantic inferential leap is required to reach the majority's conclusion. Therefore, this piece of evidence is insufficient to avoid the necessity of a circumstantial evidence instruction.