Ostroeuropa wrote:Galloism wrote:Um, no. I read the appellant and respondent arguments.
The state still has to prove that the victim did not consent beyond a reasonable doubt. Both appellant and respondent agree on this point. The respondent states this element was proved beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution calling the victim to testify as to her incapacity.
The question is whether jury instruction 13 confused the jury as to the relevant law, which, the way it was given (which was agreed to by both appellant and respondent), I tend to lean toward the appellant. The jury might have taken it as a judge's comment on the evidence, and combined two steps in deliberation (was she incapacitated? If not, acquit. If so, did the accused know it? If not, acquit. If so, convict.). What the court did not do was intentionally shift the burden of proof. Everyone agrees mens rea has to be approved.
Now, was the jury confused by the instruction...? Maybe. Which is why we have appeals.
It would seem i've been misled. thanks for correcting me.
Czechovelkov wrote:Booze and Rape sounded like an epic party at first, now, not so much
Rape isn't funny.
*sneezes confetti*
Well, this is one of those cases where, if *everyone* is to be believed (which may or may not be true), the victim might have been blacked out drunk but not passed out drunk.
Coherent, speaking clearly, walking straight, but storing no memory of the night's events.
When the victim wakes up, they smell like sex and know it. Logically, however, he/she has no memory of it, so the victim assumes he or she was raped while passed out.
Which is one of the... bad things about alcohol, particularly for people who have mid to high tolerance of it.
Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:26 am