Opinion ID: 1771162
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: did the trial court err in failing to grant a directed verdict?

Text: Defense counsel points out that his second assignment of error is largely a continuation of the first. Therein, counsel cautions that the evidence at trial did not indicate any attempt of Alexander to obtain penetration of the victim. In line with this assertion, counsel for Alexander asserts, The only act arguably extending toward forced sexual intercourse was the attempt to raise a t-shirt which covered another garment underneath. Thereto, counsel also asserts that Alexander obviously abandoned any attempt to rape McChesney. In reviewing Alexander's argument, the Court reduces the appellant's argument to two elements: (1) no forcible acts were committed against the victim and (2) that any attempt was abandoned. With these elements in mind, the Court believes that Harden v. State is controlling case law on these points. In Harden, this Court explains: Central to this case is the matter of how much of an overt act must be committed before one is guilty under the laws of this state of the crime of attempted rape. We hold that a lewd suggestion to the victim coupled with the defendant's physical grabbing his victim and attempting to carry her away only to have her break free are under the facts of this case sufficient. Id. at 322. The Court holds that appellant's no forcible acts argument is disputed first by the record. More specifically, the record indicates that Alexander placed a towel over the victim's face, applied pressure sufficient to make her uncomfortable, and tried to pull her shirt up. The Court finds that the following language from Harden is dispositive: Harden contends nevertheless that, because Griffin was not injured, nor was her clothing torn, his actions do not amount to attempted rape. Put another way, Harden essentially contends that because he did not actually rape Griffin, he is not guilty of an attempt to rape Griffin. Harden is overly optimistic. Harden, 465 So.2d at 325. The second element, the abandonment argument, centers on Alexander's voluntarily fleeing the room. This Court finds that this argument is meritless. The victim's testimony shows that the appellant ceased his actions only after the victim managed to press the buzzer alerting the nurse. Therein, this Court stresses the fact that the evidence supports the conclusion that appellant's failure to rape the victim was due to her resistance and ability to sound the alarm, rather to any abandonment on appellant's part.