Opinion ID: 1692554
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: motions for dismissal or directed acquittal

Text: In his second assignment of error, Brown contends that his motions for dismissal or a directed verdict should have been sustained, because evidence [did] not establish the elements of the crime. Brief for Appellant at 14. The gist of Brown's argument is the evidence fails to provide any basis for finding that Brown sexually penetrated the victim. In a criminal case a court can direct a verdict only when (1) there is a complete failure of evidence to establish an essential element of the crime charged, or (2) evidence is so doubtful in character, lacking probative value, that a finding of guilt based on such evidence cannot be sustained. State v. Clancy, 224 Neb. 492, 501, 398 N.W.2d 710, 717 (1987). In determining whether evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction in a jury trial, the Supreme Court does not resolve conflicts of evidence, pass on credibility of witnesses, evaluate explanations, or reweigh evidence presented to a jury, which are within a jury's province for disposition. A verdict in a criminal case must be sustained if the evidence, viewed and construed most favorably to the State, is sufficient to support that verdict. State v. Clancy, supra . See, also, State v. Schott, 222 Neb. 456, 384 N.W.2d 620 (1986). Cunnilingus is stimulation of the vulva or clitoris with the lips or tongue. Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged 554 (1981). See, also, State v. Kish, 186 Conn. 757, 443 A.2d 1274 (1982); State v. Ludlum, 303 N.C. 666, 281 S.E.2d 159 (1981). The vulva is composed of the external parts of the female genital organs ... the opening between the projecting parts of the external organs. Webster's, supra at 2567. See, also, State v. Ludlum, supra . We need not indulge in an extensive anatomy lesson concerning the clitoris, an organ which realistically defies sexual penetration as envisioned in § 28-318(6). In view of § 28-318(6), characterizing or defining sexual penetration, the criminal act of cunnilingus is punishable as a sexual assault similar, but not identical, to sexual assaults involving penetration of a victim's body, such as vaginal intercourse, or any other sexual activity constituting a prohibited intrusion of an assailant's or victim's body. The Legislature clearly intended that cunnilingus, that is, stimulation by the tongue or lips of any part of a female's genitalia, is an act which may subject the actor to prosecution for first degree sexual assault under the provisions of § 28-319(1). It is difficult to imagine how attempted, but uncompleted, lingual penetration of a victim's vagina would not include cunnilingus. Moreover, we decline to require that a victim, especially a youthful victim, testify about an act of cunnilingus in vocabulary used by a gynecologist or provide a detailed description which might otherwise be found in some sordid novel. Therefore, once the perpetrator's lips or tongue touches any part of a female's genitalia, the act of cunnilingus is complete, irrespective of any actual penetration of the genitalia. See State v. Ludlum, supra . As aptly declared by the Supreme Court of North Carolina in Ludlum: We do not choose to quibble either over the word `stimulation' contained in the definitions of cunnilingus upon which we have relied. 303 N.C. at 674, 281 S.E.2d at 163. In this case, there was evidence from the victim that Brown placed his tongue in the victim's vaginal area and attempted, but failed, lingual penetration of the victim's vagina. According to Brown's statements made to Investigator Scott, Brown placed his tongue on the victim's vaginal area. In State v. Piskorski, 218 Neb. 543, 357 N.W.2d 206 (1984), this court reviewed the evidence presented in a prosecution for sexual assault by sexual penetration (cunnilingus) on a victim less than 16 years of age, a prosecution under § 28-319(1)(c), and we stated: Piskorski's second argument is that the evidence was insufficient to establish the elements of the crime.... ... The mother testified that while her daughter's clothes were off, the defendant touched the child between the legs with his hands, rubbed her between the legs, and then kissed her between the legs. Piskorski argues that the testimony establishing that he placed his head between the child's legs and kissed her did not prove the elements of the crime. With that argument we cannot agree. 218 Neb. at 549, 357 N.W.2d at 211. In Piskorski, we concluded that the act of cunnilingus, constitutes sexual penetration within the meaning of § 28-319(1), even though there is not in fact intrusion into the body. 218 Neb. at 550, 357 N.W.2d at 212. Courts of other jurisdictions have arrived at the same conclusion we reached in Piskorski, namely, under the statutory scheme of first degree sexual assault, cunnilingus does not require penetration of a female's genitalia. See, Partain v. State, 63 Md.App. 260, 492 A.2d 669 (1985); State v. Kish, supra ; State v. McNeely, 314 N.C. 451, 333 S.E.2d 738 (1985). The State presented a prima facie case of first degree sexual assault, and the quantum of evidence in this case is such that the district court could not properly dismiss the proceedings or direct a verdict of acquittal. The court correctly overruled Brown's motions for dismissal and a directed verdict.