Court Opinion

ID: 9645938
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:40:44.056336+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:33.245065
License: Public Domain

LEIBSON, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the Majority Opinion except as to the double jeopardy issue.
The majority states the convictions for second-degree assault and first-degree rape do not constitute double jeopardy because neither offense is included in the other. I disagree.
It is true that forcible rape and assault can be proved by different evidence. However, where, as here, the fact is that the same evidence is used to prove both the assault and the forcible compulsion element of the rape, this constitutes double jeopardy. American Law Institute, Model Penal Code, Multiple Offenses, § 1.07.
Further, under KRS 505.020 merger occurs when the same evidence proves both a lesser included offense and an element of the greater offense, cf. Commonwealth v. Varney, Ky., 690 S.W.2d 758 (1985). This occurred here. This merger principle should prohibit conviction of both offenses as double jeopardy. The force proving the forcible compulsion element of first-degree rape was the same force causing physical injury to the victim resulting in the assault charge.
Therefore, the force used for conviction of assault merged with the force used to establish forcible compulsion to convict of first-degree rape and Wager was convicted of one offense included in another in violation of the double jeopardy principle.
VANCE, J., joins this concurring opinion.