Court Opinion

ID: 9505652
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 20:14:00.443575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:40.529084
License: Public Domain

BOEHM, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I would conclude that the evidence of the prior rape was sufficiently shaky as a “signature” crime that it should not have been admitted in view of the obvious and substantial prejudice that a prior rape charge would generate. I agree with the majority that the error was harmless in view of the DNA evidence.
I disagree that testimony of anal penetration by a “blunt object” varied sufficiently from the charged penetration with a “sex organ” that the jury could not convict for the charged crime in Count IV. The jury was properly instructed on the elements of criminal deviate conduct and also instructed to rely on the common sense that it had gained from day-to-day living. It heard evidence that semen was found in the victim’s shorts. In my view, this was sufficient to support the inference that a penis was the blunt object. Accordingly, I dissent from the reversal of Allen’s conviction on Count IV, and concur in affirming the convictions on the other counts.
DICKSON, J., concurs in part.