Court Opinion

ID: 9666702
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:25:54.409291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:32.307486
License: Public Domain

WINTERSHEIMER, Justice.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because the evidence is such that a reasonable juror could not doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime of rape and consequently a lesser-included offense instruction was not necessary.
The complaint that the instruction on second-degree sexual assault should have been given was not properly preserved for appellate review. The defendant made a brief reference to the fact that he desired such an instruction but failed to make a specific objection to the absence of such an instruction and did not state the matter on which he objected. An instruction on a lesser-included offense should not be given unless the evidence is such that a reasonable juror could doubt the guilt of the offense charged but could conclude that he is guilty of the lesser-included offense. My review of the evidence indicates that it could not be reasonably believed that the defendant was guilty of anything other than the forcible compulsion necessary for rape.
The mere fact that members of the CHR confused the nonlegal generic terms of sexual abuse and sexual molestation was not a sufficient basis for a sexual abuse instruction because it was not justified by all the evidence. It should be clear that any attempt at delicacy on the part of witnesses can be easily misconstrued as some lesser offense. If it is rape, it should be clearly identified as rape.
The testimony of the social worker regarding the 1977 reports to the CHR by the victim and the child welfare records were properly admitted at trial. The only argument presented to the trial judge in support of the defense objection was that the testimony was being improperly introduced to reinforce the prior testimony of the victim.
When the credibility of a witness has been attacked by a charge of recent fabrication, rebuttal evidence may be introduced which shows that the witness made prior consistent statements on occasion before the alleged motive to fabricate arose. Pri- or to the testimony of the social worker, Reed attempted to challenge the credibility of the victim by generally assailing her efforts to report the crimes when they had occurred in 1977. He also alleged that the victim had been motivated to fabricate the charges because of an altercation which occurred in 1979, two years after the victims reported the crimes to CHR.
In addition to responding to the reinforcement complaint, the testimony of the social worker was also potentially relevant in explaining to the jury why the prosecution had been delayed. The complained of testimony was properly admitted for a relevant non-reinforcement purpose.
I would affirm the conviction.
STEPHENSON, J., joins in this dissent.