Court Opinion

ID: 9669101
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:39:29.189277+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:52.426011
License: Public Domain

David Newbern, Justice, dissenting. As the majority opinion states, one statutory definition of rape, as charged in this case, is “deviate sexual activity with another person ... by forcible compulsion.” “Deviate sexual activity” has been defined by the General Assembly as “any act of sexual gratification involving: [t]he penetration, however slight, of the vagina or anus of one person by any body member or foreign instrument manipulated by another person.” Thus, to prove rape in the circumstances of this case, it was necessary for the state to show that Warren penetrated the victim as an act of “sexual gratification.” The Court’s opinion concludes, in effect, it is unnecessary that there be proof of sexual gratification, relying on our decisions in Williams v. State, 298 Ark. 317, 766 S.W.2d 931 (1989), McGalliard v. State, 306 Ark. 181, 813 S.W.2d 768 (1991), and Holbert v. State, 308 Ark. 672, 826 S.W.2d 284 (1992). I disagree. In the Williams case, Williams sought post-conviction relief on the ground that his lawyer was ineffective. See Ark. R. Crim. P. 37. He argued his lawyer should have challenged the sufficiency of the evidence used to convict Williams of rape. The evidence against Williams was that, during an attack on a woman he had once dated, he had placed his fingers in her vagina. We explained that the issue in an appeal from a denial of post-conviction relief is whether there is any evidence, no matter how slight, to support the conviction. We made this statement: The plain fact is that when persons, other than physicians or other persons for legitimate medical reasons, insert something in another person’s vagina or anus, it is not necessary that the state provide direct proof that the act was done for sexual gratification. [Emphasis supplied.] In my view we were not saying that there need be no proof whatever, but that circumstantial evidence would suffice. As the General Assembly has made sexual gratification an element of the definition of the offense, of course we cannot disregard it. The State must prove each and every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. To do otherwise would be a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (1975); Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1911); Norton v. State, 271 Ark. 451, 609 S.W.2d 1 (1988). In the McGalliard case, we were dealing with a conviction of first degree sexual abuse, Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-108(a)(3)(1987), which also requires a finding of sexual gratification. We rejected McGalliard’s contention that the requirement of finding sexual gratification made the Statute vague. We pointed out the dictionary definition of “sexual” and that of “gratification” and said “[w]hen construed in accordance with their reasonable and commonly accepted meaning and with the specific acts described in section 5-14-101(8) [defining “sexual contact”], the words leave no doubt as to what behavior is prohibited under the statute.” We then dealt with McGalliard’s claim that the evidence was insufficient and found evidence of sexual gratification in the victim’s testimony that McGalliard had touched her “between my legs. . . (indicating) right there in the middle ... my private parts.” In the Holbert case, we again reviewed a conviction of sexual abuse in the first degree. The events giving rise to the charge occurred at a day care center. Witnesses, who were some of the child victims, testified they observed Holbert holding other girls and touching them between their legs in a manner that was not accidental. In another instance a witness testified that Holbert had touched the victims in their “privates.” In both the McGalliard and Holbert cases we cited the language quoted above from the Williams case for the proposition that there need be no direct evidence of sexual gratification, and that was correct. It is incorrect, however, to rely on it in this case in which there is no evidence whatever of sexual gratification. In all three of these earlier cases relied upon by the Court’s opinion there was strong evidence of physical touchings, not involving an instrument, which could easily have been perceived by the fact finders as done for sexual gratification as we defined it in the McGalliard decision. I find no such evidence here. As long as the General Assembly defines rape by deviate sexual activity as including sexual gratification on the part of the perpetrator, however ill advised that may be, I cannot ignore the requirement and vote to affirm a conviction when there is no such evidence, direct or circumstantial. I respectfully dissent. Holt, C.J., joins this dissent.