Opinion ID: 2555899
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Jury Instructions Concerning Consent Defense

Text: As noted above, it is the function of this Court to review jury instructions in their entirety to ascertain the manner in which a jury of ordinary intelligent lay people would have understood them, and review the challenged portions of the jury instructions in the context in which they were rendered. Cardona, 969 A.2d at 674 (quoting Krushnowski, 773 A.2d at 246). [A]n erroneous charge warrants reversal only if it can be shown that the jury `could have been misled' to the resultant prejudice of the complaining party. Sivo, 925 A.2d at 913 (quoting Saber, 811 A.2d at 653). The defendant asserts that the trial justice erred when, during his charge to the jury, he stated that, [i]n order to prove the [d]efendant guilty of first-degree sexual assault, the [s]tate must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he, meaning Mr. Lynch, did not reasonably believe that the alleged victim consented to the sexual acts. Lynch argues that this instruction elevated consent to an element of first-degree sexual assault and that the jury erroneously could have found defendant guilty based on lack of consent. We deem this argument to be wholly without merit. The defendant takes these few instructions out of context. It is the state's burden to prove lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Brigham, 638 A.2d 1043, 1046 (R.I.1994); State v. Pule, 453 A.2d 1095, 1098 (R.I.1982). Immediately before introducing the defense of consent to the jury, the trial justice explained that the [s]tate must show that [defendant's] sexual penetration was accomplished by force or coercion against the will of [complainant]. He then proceeded to instruct on force and resistance. We are of the opinion that the trial justice correctly instructed the jury. Consent was not an element of the crime for which defendant was charged, but a defense. Significantly, we equally are convinced that the jury could not have been misled into believing that it could convict defendant without finding the essential element of force or coercion.