Opinion ID: 1627673
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Comparison of the Elements of First-Degree Rape Involving Serious Physical Injury and First-Degree Assault.

Text: The elements of first-degree assault appear in KRS 508.010. Subsection (1) of that statute provides, in pertinent part, that [a] person is guilty of assault in the first degree when ... [h]e intentionally causes serious physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.... Thus, for purposes of this case, the elements of assault in the first degree are that Dixon (1) intentionally (2) caused serious physical injury to Doe (3) by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument. The elements of first-degree rape appear in KRS 510.040. That statute provides, in relevant part, that [a] person is guilty of rape in the first degree when ... [h]e engages in sexual intercourse with another person by forcible compulsion.... And KRS 510.040(2) provides that first-degree rape is a Class B felony, unless the victim is under twelve years old or receives a serious physical injury, in which case the offense is reclassified as a Class A felony. [20] So the General Assembly saw fit to punish more severely rapists who cause a serious physical injury to their victim than rapists who do not cause such an injury. The parties disagree, however, about whether the serious physical injury requirement is a substantive element of first-degree rape. We previously have held that a fact that merely increases the possible punishment for an offense is not an element of the offense. For example, in Baker v. Commonwealth, [21] an appellant was convicted of, among other things, kidnapping and reckless homicide. Appellant argued that her convictions for kidnapping and reckless homicide constituted double jeopardy because the death of the kidnapping victim was also the basis for the reckless homicide conviction. This argument was premised, at least in part, on the fact that the felony classification of a kidnapping conviction depends on whether the victim was released alive. [22] We rejected that argument, holding that whether the victim was released alive is not an element of the substantive offense of kidnapping. Such a determination is used only for purposes of determining the range of punishments which may be imposed. [23] Thus, application of Baker would lead to a conclusion that serious physical injury was a mere sentencing factor, not a substantive element of the offense. But after Baker , the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark opinion in Apprendi v. New Jersey, in which it held that [o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. [24] Unquestionably, Doe's serious physical injury increased Dixon's possible punishment. So in order properly for Dixon's rape conviction to be classified as a Class A felony, the jury was required to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Doe suffered a serious physical injury. [25] We must conclude that serious physical injury is a substantive element of first-degree rape if the Commonwealth seeks to have a rape offense classified as a Class A felony. [26] So to the extent that Baker , or cases following its rule, hold to the contrary, they are overruled, based upon Apprendi. This conclusion should come as no surprise because we have already followed Apprendi. in similar situations, such as our holding that a jury must find that a defendant possessed a firearm while committing a narcotics-related offense in order for the firearms enhancement statute [27] to apply. [28] Therefore, in cases like this one, in which the Commonwealth prosecutes a defendant on a charge of first-degree rape under a theory that the victim suffered a serious physical injury, the elements of first-degree rape are as follows: (1) engaging in sexual intercourse with another person (2) by forcible compulsion, (3) which results in the victim receiving a serious physical injury. Applying the Blockburger test to these two offenses, it is clear that first-degree rape premised on serious physical injury and first-degree assault each contains an element that the other does not. Specifically, first-degree rape requires sexual intercourse, but first-degree assault does not; first-degree assault requires a jury to find that the serious physical injury was obtained by use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, but first-degree rape involving serious physical injury to the victim contains no such deadly weapon or dangerous instrument requirement. Although we certainly recognize the inescapable fact that a serious physical injury will usually be accomplished by use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, [29] our Blockburger -guided double jeopardy analysis should focus only on whether each statute, on its face, contains a different element. [30] And, in any event, it is beyond doubt that there is no sexual intercourse element involved in first-degree assault. Thus, it is clear that under the Blockburger test, assault in the first degree is not a lesser included offense of first-degree rape involving serious physical injury to the victim. [31]