Court Opinion

ID: 9561152
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:04:26.124892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:39.476841
License: Public Domain

O’CONNELL, C. J.,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissent in State v. Washington. There was sufficient evidence offered at the trial to justify a conclusion by the jury that defendant entered the victim’s trader without an intent to commit a crime of any kind, but that after he entered the trailer he formed the intent to commit and committed the crime of sexual abuse. Why should the jury be precluded from reaching this conclusion if it chooses to do so? The majority opinion’s answer is that the jury is not permitted to consider the lesser offense because it is not a lesser-included offense. If the state had charged defendant with the crime of rape, he would have been entitled to the instruction requested in the present case because sexual abuse is a lesser-included offense within the crime of rape. Thus, under the rule employed by the majority, the happenstance of the prosecutor’s choice in charging the defendant determines the defendant’s right to the submission of an issue not charged by the state and also determines whether the jury will be permitted to consider the lesser offense. A rule which produces such a result should not be perpetuated.
Holman, J., joins in this dissent.