Opinion ID: 2183231
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Issue 3 Sufficiency of Consent Evidence

Text: Defendant next contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the confinement of M.A. occurred without her consent. His argument further suggests the contention that, even if M.A. did not consent, the evidence was insufficient to prove defendant knew she wasn't consenting. Under Ind. Code § 35-42-3-3, the basic offense of criminal confinement occurs when a person knowingly or intentionally confines another person without his consent. The requisite culpability is defined by Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2 as follows: (a) A person engages in conduct intentionally if, when he engages in the conduct, it is his conscious objective to do so. (b) A person engages in conduct knowingly if, when he engages in the conduct, he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so. In addressing the issue of sufficiency of evidence, we will affirm the conviction if, considering only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict, without weighing evidence or assessing witness credibility, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Case v. State (1984), Ind., 458 N.E.2d 223; Loyd v. State (1980), 272 Ind. 404, 407, 398 N.E.2d 1260, 1264, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 881, 101 S.Ct. 231, 66 L.Ed.2d 105. M.A. testified that she did not consent to the bondage, that she struggled with defendant, cried and begged defendant to let her go. She further testified that she had been threatened if she did not cooperate, be calm and go along with the bondage game. Other witnesses testified that they heard a woman crying, observed M.A. handcuffed or leashed and that she appeared uncomfortable, uneasy, upset and shaken. Defendant bragged about having kidnapped M.A. and holding her in bondage. We find the evidence and reasonable inferences sufficient to prove lack of consent and defendant's awareness thereof.