Court Opinion

ID: 9711023
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:23:04.118229+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:01.743171
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE CRAVEN, dissenting: The prosecutrix was led through the most crucial aspects of her testimony; and even with that help, there was very little, if any, testimony showing any acts of force. Moreover, there is no corroborating evidence of force. Thus, guilt must be based upon absence of effective consent, not the presence of force. In relevant part, section 4 — 3 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. 4 — 3) states: “Mental State, (a) A person is not guilty of an offense, * * 0 unless, with respect to each element described by the statute defining the offense, he acts while having one of the mental states described in Sections 4 — 4 through 4 — 7. (b) 0 0 0 If the statute does not prescribe a particular mental state applicable to an element of an offense, * * * any mental state defined in Sections 4 — 4 [Intent], 4 — 5 [Knowledge] or 4 — 6 [Recklessness] is applicable.” The fact that the “female is so mentally * 0 * deficient that she cannot give effective consent to intercourse” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. 11 — 1(a) (2)) is an element of rape. It is equally clear that under the above-quoted statute the State had to prove that the defendant at least acted recklessly with respect to each element of rape, including the prosecutrix’s mental incapacity. The trial court granted the State’s motion in limine to preclude the defendant from introducing evidence of his own mental deficiencies. This fact is not mentioned in the majority’s opinion. This rule denied the defendant any opportunity to show that he did not have the requisite mental state or capacity to judge the prosecutrix’s mental incapacity. This was error. It cannot be, in this most unfortunate fact situation, that the victim was not capable of consent by reason of her incapacity while the defendant, ivith the same incapacity, is guilty of rape because he failed to appreciate the inability to give consent. I would reverse for a new trial and allow evidence as to the mental deficiencies of the defendant.