Court Opinion

ID: 9479921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:33:00.133901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:22.380982
License: Public Domain

KENNEDY, Circuit Judge,
joined by MERRITT, C.J., MILBURN, RALPH B. GUY, Jr. and RYAN, JJ., concurring.
The trial judge refused to give an instruction on the lesser included offense of sexual abuse in the first degree on the grounds that the evidence didn’t warrant it. The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed, holding that petitioner as a matter of state law was not entitled to the instruction under the facts of this case. The victim testified that defendant twice forced her to have sexual intercourse and that penetration occurred both times. Her testimony regarding penetration is unequivocal. The testimony regarding the effect of intoxication and the absence of evidence of genital trauma did not impeach the victim’s testimony but was consistent with it.
The doctor testified that penetration could have occurred without evidence of such trauma. The only evidence as to the degree of intoxication of the perpetrator of the rape was the victim’s, and she testified that, although intoxicated, defendant was capable of penetration. To allow the jury to conclude that defendant had sexual contact by forcible compulsion with the victim but had not raped her, or attempted to rape her,1 would be to permit a verdict based on speculation. There is no basis on which reasonable jurors could doubt that defendant was guilty of rape yet conclude he was guilty of first degree sexual abuse. To find either one, they would have to accept the victim’s testimony. If they did, they would have to find rape. Defendant did not argue lack of penetration. Instead, he offered an alibi defense.
The evidence did not warrant an included offense instruction on first degree sexual abuse. I would therefore not reach the constitutional issue.2
I concur in parts IV and V of Judge Norris’ opinion.

. The state suggested that if an included offense instruction should be given, it should be attempted rape. Had that been agreed to by peti- - tioner, it would have been given.

. Interestingly, none of the courts that have held that a defendant had a constitutional right to an included offense instruction have found that the defendant was entitled to the instruction on the facts of the case before them. See, e.g., Prather v. Rees, 822 F.2d 1418, 1422-24 (6th Cir.1987); Ferrazza. v. Mintzes, 735 F.2d 967, 968 (6th Cir.1984); Bishop v. Mazurkiewcz, 634 F.2d 724, 725 (3d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 917, 101 S.Ct. 3053, 69 L.Ed.2d 421 (1981).