Opinion ID: 2166128
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Conviction for First Degree Sexual Assault Supports Use of Weapon Conviction

Text: Thurman argues that because intent is not an element of first degree sexual assault and because a defendant is not entitled to introduce affirmative defenses to negate intent, the crime cannot be considered intentional. Thurman does not dispute that first degree sexual assault is a general intent crime. [7] As a general intent crime, criminal intent is inferred from the commission of the acts constituting the elements of the crime of first degree sexual assault. [8] In order to prove general criminal intent, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused subjected another person to sexual penetration and overcame the victim by force, threat of force coercion, or deception. [9] As the State notes, while under Ring, a vehicle cannot be used for the purpose of unintentionally committing motor vehicle homicide, it would be absurd if a weapon could not be used for the purpose of subjecting another to sexual penetration through the use of force, threat of force, coercion, or deception. [10] The reasoning expressed in Ring simply has no application outside of the context of a purely unintentional crime. The district court did not err in concluding that first degree sexual assault would support a use of a weapon charge.