Court Opinion

ID: 9836720
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:14:53.582841+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:18.661772
License: Public Domain

CRAWFORD, Chief Judge
(dissenting):
The findings of fact of the Court of Criminal Appeals concerning the evidence of EH’s intoxication are clearly erroneous and unsupported by the record. Because there is ample evidence of record upon which the trier of *84fact could conclude that EH was intoxicated and, therefore, unable to give consent, I would not reach the question whether EH was aware or unaware of penetration.
The factual question of the level of EH’s intoxication was presented to the members at various points during the trial: trial counsel’s argument, cross-examination, and the military judge’s instructions.
The evidence introduced at trial revealed that appellant purchased a bottle of Dewars whiskey just before and in anticipation of sexual activities, and gave 17-year-old EH and her 16-year-old boyfriend water cooler cups full of whiskey to drink, before any of the acts occurred. EH testified that she was feeling the effects of the alcohol, and her boyfriend testified that she was acting silly. In fact, EH said she was so drunk she could not see herself when she looked in her hand-held mirror. The military judge instructed the members that:
When a victim is incapable of consenting because she is intoxicated to the extent that she lacks the mental capacity to consent, no greater force is required than that necessary to achieve penetration.
Additionally he instructed that:
In deciding whether [EH] had consented to the sexual intercourse you should consider all the evidence in this case, including, but not limited to [EH’s] age, her experience with alcohol, the degree of Miss [H’s] intoxication, if any, her mental alertness, the ability of Miss [H] to walk, to communicate coherently, and other circumstances surrounding the sexual intercourse.
If Miss [H] was incapable of giving consent, and if the accused knew or had reasonable cause to know that Miss [H] was incapable of giving consent because she was intoxicated, the act of sexual intercourse was done by force and without consent.
Based upon all of the evidence, the members found appellant guilty of rape.
It is clear that appellant gave intoxicating liquor to 17-year-old EH and her 16-year-old boyfriend with the intent of dulling their senses so that he could engage in various sexual acts with EH, including entering her sexually without her opposition.
Since appellant, as the provider of alcohol to these minors, had good reason to believe EH was too intoxicated to consent to sexual intercourse with him, and since the testimony of EH and her boyfriend evidenced that she was in fact intoxicated, I would hold that the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain appellant’s conviction for rape.
I cannot support the notion that the ability of EH and her boyfriend to recall the events of the night in question in “ringing clarity” has any special relevance to the question of EH’s intoxication. This is particularly the case where, as here, no evidence was presented at trial concerning the effect of intoxication on memory and no evidence was presented which contradicted the clear evidence of EH’s intoxication.
I think it will be a sad day for all victims of sexual crimes if their ability to recall the criminal acts perpetrated upon them is used against them in this fashion.