Court Opinion

ID: 9679176
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:43:23.972044+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:11.015413
License: Public Domain

WINTERSHEIMER, Justice,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because the evidence did not justify a jury instruction as to a criminal attempt to commit rape in the third degree.
The thrust of the defense in this matter was a total denial by Williams of any criminal activity. He did not present any alternative theory of defense. The Court of Appeals properly ruled that the evidence did not justify a jury instruction as to a criminal intent to commit rape in the third degree because the affidavit of the victim, *884which was not admitted into evidence, stated that Williams did not forcibly rape her, which would have been a defense to rape in the first degree but not in the third degree.
The testimony presented through the affidavit does not require an attempted rape in the third degree instruction. Third degree rape considers consensual sexual intercourse by an adult with a person less than 16 years old. The victim here was 14 years old. The allegations contained in the affidavit relate to attempted sexual intercourse by forcible compulsion or rape in the first degree which is KRS 510.040. Attempted rape in the first degree is not a lesser-included offense of rape in the third degree.
An instruction on a lesser-included offense should not be given unless the evidence is such that a reasonable juror could doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged but conclude that he is guilty of a lesser-included offense. Luttrell v. Commonwealth, 554 S.W.2d 75 (Ky.1977).
I would affirm the conviction in all respects.