Court Opinion

ID: 9762884
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:33:28.34379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:38.287356
License: Public Domain

*868HARRIS, Associate Judge
(dissenting):
My analysis of the record convinces me beyond question that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction for the offense of carnal knowledge. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. In doing so, I stress at the outset that while there was adequate proof of penetration, the penetration which was proven was anal rather than vaginal in character. Appellant, however, was not charged with sodomy. See D.C.Code 1973, § 22-3502.
In order to establish guilt of the crime of carnal knowledge, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was some penetration of the female complainant’s genitals (as a minimum, of her labia if not her vagina) by the penis of the defendant. See, e. g., Wheeler v. United States, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 159, 211 F.2d 19 (1953), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 1013, 94 S.Ct. 876, 98 L.Ed. 1140 (1954); United States v. Wiley, 160 U.S.App.D.C. 281, 492 F.2d 547 (1973). Three government witnesses offered testimony relevant to the issue of penetration. Of the three, two — the complainant and her mother — specifically described the incident in such a way that the jury could not permissibly have inferred vaginal penetration. The third witness’ testimony, that of the-examining physician, could not support such a finding either alone or in the face of the consistent evidence to the contrary from both the complainant and her mother.
The girl’s testimony, while expressed in colloquialisms common to the young, was unwavering and straightforward. She declared that appellant had his penis “in [her] back.” She stated that she could feel it inside her back and that it hurt her. Later in the trial, when the government recalled the complainant in an effort to clarify this point, she responded in artless but unmistakable terms that she knew the difference between “the place where you go to pee pee” and “the place where you go to dodo”, and that appellant had entered her in the latter location.
It is expected that an eight-year-old would be unschooled in precise sexual terminology. Nonetheless, excretory functions are among a child’s first learning experiences, and I am unable to join the majority in wholly disregarding the complainant’s actual testimony as to the nature of the penetration. Throughout her time on the witness stand, when the complainant was confused or did not know the answer to a question, she readily so stated. In the aggregate, her testimony was both plain and unfaltering.
The majority places an unwarranted degree of reliance on the testimony of the mother that she saw “intercourse” taking place. In its totality, however, the mother’s testimony corroborated the fact that anal rather than vaginal penetration occurred. The mother stated that appellant’s penis was “in her [daughter’s] behind.” She used the ambiguous word “intercourse” often, but when asked on cross-examination to define the term, she replied that she meant “[h]e was having something to do with her.”1 Defense counsel then asked, “But was it in her back?” “Yes”, she replied. Later, she acknowledged not having seen the actual penetration. She stated that when she pulled the child off the bed, she saw appellant’s penis “coming out of someplace behind her.” When she was asked, “You didn’t see it coming out of her vagina ?”, she answered flatly: “No.”
The child was not psychologically amenable to a prompt medical examination, so the doctor who testified relied solely upon *869an examination which took place a week after the incident. His report was simple and unenlightening. The child’s genitals were normal, although her hymen did not appear to be intact. Her rectum was normal. The only irregularity discovered was a minimal amount of blood in the area of the vagina and rectum.2 Certainly the doctor’s finding that the girl’s hymen did not appear to be intact could not permit a jury validly to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that vaginal penetration had occurred on this particular occasion. As I read the whole record, a reasonable juror necessarily must have had a reasonable doubt on the element of genital penetration. Accordingly, the motion for a judgment of acquittal should have been granted on the carnal knowledge count.3 See Crawford v. United States, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 156, 158, 375 F.2d 332, 334 (1967).
It does not follow, however, that the government failed to prove the commission of any offense.4 Appellant also was charged with and proven guilty of the crime of taking indecent liberties with a child.5 D.C.Code 1973, § 22-3501 (a). Therefore, although I am convinced that the government’s evidence cannot support the conviction for carnal knowledge, I do not advocate complete reversal. The record does reflect proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the elements of taking indecent liberties with a child.6 Accordingly, I would remand the case to the trial court with directions to set aside the carnal knowledge conviction and enter a judgment of guilty on the indecent liberties charge.7

. The mother’s use of the word “intercourse” presumably is the source of the entire problem. I suspect the daughter was spared the ordeal of testifying before the grand jury, and that .the grand jury was misled by the mother as to what actually happened. Otherwise, perhaps the charge would have been sodomy, a conviction for which would have been sustainable.

. While the transcript is unclear on this point, I interpret the area of limited trauma to be the perineum, which itself would be inconclusive.

. Despite a total lack of evidence of any physical force or threats, the trial court instructed the jury on the elements of both rape and carnal knowledge. It did so without intending to accept guilty verdicts on both counts; the court indicated that if the jury returned two such verdicts it would set one of them aside. Appellant contends that the instruction on rape confused the jury and prejudiced him unduly. The majority disposes of this point somewhat cavalierly in its footnote 1, but I am unable to see how the mere fact that the jury found appellant guilty of carnal knowledge resolves this substantial claim of error. The possibility that the jury, in its confusion, may have reached a compromise verdict from among three serious offenses is evident. In my opinion, the instructions should have been limited to indecent liberties since, on the facts of the case, neither the charge of forcible rape nor that of carnal knowledge should have been submitted to the jury.

. As noted, appellant was not charged with sodomy, although I believe that the elements of such an offense were proven.

. In fact, the jury returned verdicts of not guilty of rape, and guilty of both carnal knowledge and indecent liberties. The trial court set aside the verdict on the lesser-included offense of indecent liberties.

. The majority makes no reference to the . fact that the incident obviously constituted an intrafamily offense. D.C.Code 1973, § 16-1001(1) (C). There is no indication that the United States Attorney notified the Director of Social Services of the occurrence, as was required by D.C.Code 1973, § 16-1002(a). This point was not raised below or on appeal, however, and I see no error in the failure to have given the requisite notification. See Robinson, v. United States, D.C.App., 317 A.2d 508, 511-12 (1974). The requirements of the statute, however, must be borne in mind.

. See, e. g., Allison v. United States, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 159, 166, 409 F.2d 445, 452 (1969). See also United States v. Bryant, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 124, 132-33, 420 F.2d 1327, 1335-36 (1969).
Such a disposition also would necessitate resentencing. The maximum imprisonment for carnal knowledge (and rape) is life, D.C.Code 1973, § 22-2801; the maximum for indecent liberties is ten years. D.C. Code 1973, § 22-3501 (a). The sentence imposed on the carnal knowledge conviction was three-to-nine years. While that sentence is within the permissible range for indecent liberties, the trial judge’s sentencing decision may have been affected by the greater severity of the carnal knowledge offense.