Court Opinion

ID: 9528489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:41:35.985653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:55.890612
License: Public Domain

CARDINE, Justice,
dissenting.
What is troubling about this case is that it appears that defense counsel was successful in having this case tried in conformance with his strategy for the defense. Thus, it is plain that defendant wished to
(a) exclude evidence of prior bad acts;
(b) introduce evidence of consent; and
(c) not testify himself.
To achieve these benefits, he agreed with the trial judge that consent had not been raised as an issue and effectively agreed not to argue the consent question to the jury.
Strategically, the defense must have thought that it was in the best posture possible. Defendant had not been subject to cross-examination; there was no evidence of prior bad acts; and all evidence of consent by a number of witnesses was before the jury. Defendant’s gamble was that the jury would find from the evidence that submission did not result from the application of “physical force” as required by W.S. 6-2-302, i.e., that the victim consented. The strategy employed was reasonable under the circumstance. It was a good gamble. Unfortunately, defendant lost. Sometimes that happens.
I would affirm.