Opinion ID: 1693896
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: assignment of error number thirty-two

Text: Defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to provide defendant with a copy of the victim's statement to police. The trial court made an in camera inspection of the statement to determine if any exculpatory material was present and stated that the following aspects might be regarded as exculpatory: that Amy Williams did not see a weapon; that Langendorfer was drinking a beer; and that Langendorfer gave Amy Williams $20 after the attack took place. In her statement, Amy Williams said the defendant: ... talked about girls he had dated and uh talked about sex and . . .. It is contended that this information was also exculpatory and relevant to the issue of consent; that it might have created a reasonable doubt in the collective mind of the jury. At trial, Amy Williams testified that she and Langendorfer, also married, discussed the problems of marriage, particularly her marriage and different things in general. (Tr. 129) It was clear to the jury that the two had a fairly lengthy and detailed chat. The mere fact that Langendorfer talked about sex during the discussion does not imply a consent to sexual relations by his listener. In view of the condition of Amy Williams and her clothes after the rape, the jury could not reasonably have believed that she had consented to the act. Although the trial court may have erred in not revealing the statement or more of its content to the defense, the omission did not deny defendant a fair trial. The evidence does not raise ... a legitimate doubt on the issue of guilt. United States v. Aqurs, 96 S.Ct. 2392, at 2400, 427 U.S. 97, at 109, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976). This assignment of error lacks merit. For the foregoing reasons, the conviction and sentence of James R. Langendorfer are affirmed. AFFIRMED.