Criminal Case Study 1, Part 1

Transcription

1 1 of 2 6/15/2012 1:21 PM 667 in Main Index: Page 1 of 8 Ronald Perry is on trial for sexual assault in the third degree, assault in the second degree, trespass, harassment in the second degree, and resisting arrest. The case was initiated after Louise Perry appeared at the county emergency room with cuts over her body, contusions on her face, and bruises on her neck. At first she told the treating physician that she sustained these injuries in a fall down the stairs at her home. Only when pressed by the ER nurse, who was suspicious that her injuries were not consistent with her explanation, did Ms. Perry reveal that her husband had inflicted the injuries during the course of a violent sexual assault. Ms. Perry was referred to the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE), who completed a report (PDF 910KB). Analysis of swabs included in the rape kit revealed the presence of semen that matched that of Mr. Perry. Ms. Perry agreed to speak to the police and press charges against her husband. Mr. Perry denies that he assaulted his wife. He insists that her bruises came from a fall in their home, just as she first claimed, and that they had consensual sexual relations not long before the fall, which explains why the SANE recovered his semen from her. The case has now proceeded to the point where a jury has been empanelled and trial is set to commence. For the first time, the prosecutor informs the court that Ms. Perry is now an adverse witness. She has told the prosecutor that she does not want to testify in court, and asked that all charges be dismissed. She has been in continuous contact with the defendant since his arrest, and they plan to resume living together when he is released. The prosecutor is determined to proceed with the case, even with Ms. Perry s cooperation, because of the severity of the assault. The People seek to introduce expert testimony concerning battered women s responses to their experiences in order to assist the jury in understanding why a victim of abuse might recant or deny earlier allegations. The prosecution would like to qualify as an expert witness the SANE who examined Ms. Perry after the assault, Florence Meadows.

2 2 of 2 6/15/2012 1:21 PM Web Stats Ab Us Contact Us Credits in

3 1 of 1 6/15/2012 1:23 PM in Main Index: Where the reflection question includes multiple questions, please answer one at a time, and click the "Save and See Comment" button for the question you're answering. From the answer page you can click the "Return to Questions" button to go back and answer the other questions, or to modify your answer. Unlike the self-tests, your reflection question answers are saved so that you can come back to them at a later time. Page 2 of 8 Is expert testimony that offers an explanation for recantation of testimony admissible? If so, should a SANE be considered an expert on this issue? Web Stats Ab Us Contact Us Credits

4 1 of 1 6/15/2012 1:24 PM in Main Index: Page 3 of 8 What factors might make Ms. Perry reluctant to cooperate with the prosecutor in this matter? a. Fear of retaliation b. Financial insecurity c. Ambivalence ab jailing her children's father d. Desire for reconciliation e. Fear of being in courtroom with the abuser f. Fear of being exposed as liar g. Fear of losing children in custody battle or child neglect proceeding h. Manipulation of court process Web Stats Ab Us Contact Us Credits

5 1 of 2 6/15/2012 1:24 PM 670 in Main Index: Page 4 of 8 The prosecutor has proffered evidence concerning prior incidents in the Perry marriage that, the State contends, will shed light on Mr. Perry s intent on the night in question and assist the jury in evaluating Mr. Perry s defense that Ms. Perry consented to the sexual conduct in question. In particular, the People intend to show that three weeks before the incident that resulted in this prosecution, Ms. Perry had obtained an order of protection against Mr. Perry. In her sworn petition, she stated that Mr. Perry had choked her, slapped her, beaten her, spat on her and locked her in a closet for 12 hours. A week after obtaining the order, she wrote to the court asking to have the order dismissed because Mr. Perry had promised never to do it again, and she missed him. She also acknowledged, however, that he had threatened to burn down the marital home if she failed to get the order dismissed. Mr. Perry has called her repeatedly expressing affection and remorse. The prosecutor has also obtained tape recordings of messages left on the Perry s home answering machine in which Mr. Perry stated his intent to harm the father of Ms. Perry s two children from a prior relationship. In another voic message he threatened to stab her with a knife she kept in her night table, next to the bed. In a third message, left on the evening of the assault in issue, he accused her of having an affair with a co-worker, and stated that he was coming home to straighten her. Defendant, who contends that Ms. Perry consented to the sexual contact between them, has objected to consideration of other acts evidence under Rule of Evidence 404(b). Specifically, he objects to evidence of the tumultuous relationship between himself and the complainant. Under 404(b), [e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. Such evidence may be used, however, to prove something other than a defendant s propensity to commit a particular crime, including proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, scheme, plan, or system in doing an act, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident when the same is material.

6 2 of 2 6/15/2012 1:24 PM Web Stats Ab Us Contact Us Credits in

7 1 of 1 6/15/2012 1:25 PM in Main Index: Where the reflection question includes multiple questions, please answer one at a time, and click the "Save and See Comment" button for the question you're answering. From the answer page you can click the "Return to Questions" button to go back and answer the other questions, or to modify your answer. Unlike the self-tests, your reflection question answers are saved so that you can come back to them at a later time. Page 5 of 8 Should you admit the evidence concerning the defendant's prior threatening conduct toward his wife? Web Stats Ab Us Contact Us Credits

8 1 of 2 6/15/2012 1:25 PM 672 in Main Index: Page 6 of 8 You have decided to admit Ms. Perry s testimony against Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry then changes his defense strategy. He now claims that he and Ms. Perry are dev adherents to an obscure sect that adheres to the marriage practice of "Christian Domestic Discipline," predicated upon the command of 1 Peter 3:1: "[W]ives, you must be in subjection to your husband." Adherents to this practice subscribe to a belief that the gospel endows a husband with absolute authority over his wife, and the power to enforce it through physical punishment. At a bench conference, counsel for Mr. Perry states, "Your Honor, my client didn t like to have to do this, but they agreed in their marriage vows that she would obey him completely. He didn t mean to hurt her quite so badly, but she knew, when she didn t pay the bills on time that month, that he would have to punish her." Back on the record, the prosecutor has moved to exclude any evidence concerning the Perry s sexual relationship on other occasions as violating the State s Rape Shield Law, which states: Rules of evidence; admissibility of evidence of victim's sexual conduct in sex offense cases. Evidence of a victim's sexual conduct shall not be admissible in a prosecution for an offense or an attempt to commit an offense defined in article one hundred thirty of the penal law unless such evidence: 1. proves or tends to prove specific instances of the victim's prior sexual conduct with the accused; or 2. proves or tends to prove that the victim has been convicted of an offense under section of the penal law within three years prior to the sex offense which is the subject of the prosecution; or 3. rebuts evidence introduced by the people of the victim's failure to engage in sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse or sexual contact during a given period of time; or 4. rebuts evidence introduced by the people which proves or tends to prove that the accused is the cause of pregnancy or disease of the victim, or the source of semen found in the victim; or 5. is determined by the court after an offer of proof by the accused side the hearing of the jury, or such hearing as the court may require, and a statement by the court of its findings of fact essential to its determination, to be relevant and admissible in the interests of justice.

9 2 of 2 6/15/2012 1:25 PM Mr. Perry argues that evidence concerning Ms. Perry s sexual history is admissible under subsection (1), to show that she had consented in the past to sexual relations with him and therefore she had done so on this instance as well; and under subsection (5), to show that she had consented to a relationship characterized by "rough sex" and that any injuries that she incurred were inflicted with her consent. Web Stats Ab Us Contact Us Credits in

10 1 of 1 6/15/2012 1:25 PM in Main Index: Page 7 of 8 Would you: a. Permit under subsection (1), because past consent is compelling evidence of present consent. b. Permit under subsection (5), because consent to rough sex would explain the violent nature of the attack. c. Deny, because the complainant is entitled to revoke her consent at any point. d. Deny, because the probative value of this evidence is weighed by its prejudicial effect on the jury. Web Stats Ab Us Contact Us Credits

11 1 of 1 6/15/2012 1:25 PM in Main Index: What evidentiary issues may arise at trial from Perry's asserted defense that the alleged incidents took place as part of a consensual relationship premised upon religious beliefs? Of what significance is it that the alleged defense would not be endorsed by mainstream religious leaders of any faith? Page 8 of 8 Web Stats Ab Us Contact Us Credits