Court Opinion

ID: 9627587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:48:16.348247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:35:01.835108
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur with the Court’s decision in this case and write to address the impact of the decision in relation to statutory amendments enacted since the date of the events addressed in this case.
The Appellant in this case was convicted of acts committed, as set forth in the infor-mations, between October 1, 1986, and November 30, 1986. Each of the three offenses was alleged to have occurred during *1189this same time period. The act alleged in Count III could have been charged as a separate act of Lewd or Indecent Acts with a Child Under the Age of Sixteen if the State could have proved a separate and distinct act. However, the testimony reveals the victim was not able to provide that detailed information and double jeopardy would preclude retrial under that amended charge. At the time these acts were committed 21 O.S.1981, § 1111.1 restricted the crime of Rape by Instrumentation to an act committed with any inanimate object, thereby precluding a charge when the object was a human finger. However, this statute was amended effective November 1, 1987, and now states “Rape by instrumentation is an act within or without the bonds of matrimony in which any inanimate object or any part of the human body, not amounting to sexual intercourse is used in the carnal knowledge of another person without his or her consent and penetration of the anus or vagina occurs to the person. Provided, further, that at least one of the circumstances specified in Section 1111 of this title has been met.” (emphasis added) 21 O.S.Supp.1987, § 1111.1. Therefore, the Legislature has addressed the issue presented in this case and the same act committed after November 1,1987, would be subject to prosecution under the amended statute.