Court Opinion

ID: 9716546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:43:29.951136+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:46.785387
License: Public Domain

GIVAN, Justice,
dissenting in part and concurring in part
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion on the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to establish rape. The jury was entitled to examine the entire evidence in this case to make that determination.
The appellant had gained forceful entry into the home of the victim and had attacked her by repeatedly striking her in the face, stabbing her with a knife and striking her with a heavy object until she was rendered unconscious. He then dragged her into the bedroom. The victim was of course unable to testify that she had direct knowledge of penetration, although she stated to hospital personnel that she suspected penetration. The examining doctor stated that she did have a degree of vaginal tenderness. Whether there was or was not motile sperm in the victim's vagina is of little moment. Of course the presence of motile sperm would indicate recent sexual intercourse. However, the absence of motile sperm does not determine the question of penetration.
The statute defining rape does not require ejaculation. It states that penetration is sufficient. This Court has consistently held for many years that proof of the slightest degree of penetration is sufficient. Thomas v. State (1984), Ind., 471 N.E.2d 681. Under the circumstances of this case, I would hold that there is sufficient cireumstantial evidence to support the finding of the jury that penetration had in fact occurred.
I concur with the majority in all other aspects of this case.
PIVARNIK, J., concurs.