Court Opinion

ID: 9726248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:39:10.867885+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:24.570602
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
dissenting.
S.W., the alleged victim, stated in a medical interview following the incident that no foree was used and she repeated this claim under oath at trial The majority of this Court nevertheless concludes that she was compelled by the threat of imminent force. I am unaware of any theory of compulsion *862such that one can be compelled by something without knowing that one is being compelled.
All the evidence, including the testimony of SW. at trial, showed that her pants were already down when Appellant entered the bathroom. The pants were not "intact" when she arrived, but already had patches on the knees. The evidence at trial only indicated that the patches had come loose and testimony indicated that the victim had torn them herself. There was no evidence, not even an allegation, that Appellant had caused the bruises. The source of the abrasions on the floor of the vagina may well have been the result of the consensual sex which SW. had with her boyfriend at 10:00 a.m. the day of the alleged crime.
The physical facts were hardly numerous and the claim of actual force remains problematic. The victim testified that appellant used no force. There was no other testimony regarding the use of force. It is possible that the victim was incapable of consenting because of her weakened condition; however, the prosecutor did not bring this charge on that theory and it is not our place to uphold convictions where the State may have improperly charged a defendant.
I believe that Judges Shields and Barteau were correct when they concluded for the Court of Appeals that the evidence was simply insufficient to convict.
DICKSON, J., concurs.