Caseflicks

Supreme Court of North Carolina • 1984

State v. Alston

312 S.E.2d 470 | 310 N.C. 399 | 1984 N.C. LEXIS 1585

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case required proof that the defendant’s intent to rape existed when the removal occurred and that force or a threat of force caused the particular sexual submission; the State’s evidence did not substantially establish either requirement.

Background

Cottie Brown and the defendant had maintained a consensual sexual relationship for about six months, although the relationship involved conflict and prior violence by the defendant. Brown had moved out after the defendant struck her in May 1981. On June 15, the defendant confronted Brown outside her school, blocked her path, grabbed her arm, and said she was going with him. After releasing her arm, he and Brown walked through the neighborhood discussing their relationship.

During the walk, the defendant threatened to "fix" Brown’s face and told her she would miss class. Later, after Brown said their relationship was over, the defendant said that he deserved to make love to her again. Brown followed him to a friend’s house. There, after Brown said she was not going to bed with him, the defendant undressed her, directed her to lie on a bed, and had intercourse with her. Brown did not physically resist, testified that she did not consent, and said she was afraid of him.

The defendant offered no evidence. He moved to dismiss the first-degree kidnapping and second-degree rape charges at the close of the State’s evidence. The trial court denied the motions, and a majority of the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed and directed that verdicts be entered for the defendant on both charges.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the State presented substantial evidence that the defendant removed Brown from the school with the intent to facilitate a rape, as alleged in the kidnapping indictment.

Holding

No. Although the evidence supported an inference of forcible restraint and removal, it did not substantially show that the defendant intended to rape Brown when he removed her.

Reasoning

A motion to dismiss must be denied only when the State has offered substantial evidence of every element of the charged offense and of the defendant’s identity as the perpetrator. The court views the evidence in the State’s favor and gives it every reasonable inference, but evidence that creates only suspicion or conjecture cannot sustain a conviction.

The kidnapping indictment alleged that the defendant removed Brown to facilitate second-degree rape. Because the State chose to allege that particular purpose, it had to prove that the defendant possessed an intent to rape at the time of the removal, not merely that intercourse later occurred.

The defendant initially blocked Brown’s way, grabbed her arm, and compelled her to walk toward the parking lot. This was substantial evidence of force, intimidation, and removal. But during that initial encounter and the ensuing walk, he spoke about where Brown lived and about their relationship; he made no sexual remarks until after Brown said that the relationship was over.

Ordinarily, evidence that a defendant removed a victim and later raped her may permit an inference that the removal was intended to facilitate rape. Here, however, the evidence showed a longstanding consensual sexual relationship in which Brown had frequently remained passive during intercourse. Before Brown expressly ended the relationship, nothing in her conduct indicated to the defendant that she would refuse consensual intercourse.

After Brown said the relationship was over, the defendant first mentioned sex and said he deserved another lovemaking session. Yet he did not then touch or threaten her as they proceeded to the friend’s house, and Brown followed him without an apparent protest or indication that she was being compelled to go. Thus, the evidence did not establish that, when the original removal occurred at the school, the defendant had already formed the intent to rape.

Issue #2

Whether the State presented substantial evidence that the June 15 intercourse was accomplished by force and against Brown’s will, as required for second-degree rape.

Holding

No. The evidence substantially showed that Brown did not consent, but it did not substantially show actual or constructive force connected to the intercourse.

Reasoning

Second-degree rape requires vaginal intercourse both by force and against the victim’s will. A victim’s consent is a complete defense, but apparent consent produced by fear of violence is legally ineffective. A prior consensual sexual relationship does not bar a rape charge, because consent may be withdrawn before penetration.

Brown’s testimony supplied substantial evidence that the intercourse was against her will. She testified that she did not consent at any time on June 15, that she submitted because she was afraid, and that she expressly told the defendant immediately before intercourse that she was not going to bed with him. Physical resistance was not required to establish lack of consent.

The State, however, did not offer substantial evidence that the defendant used actual force or a threat of force to overcome Brown’s will on June 15. The defendant’s earlier grabbing of Brown’s arm and threat to "fix" her face could have caused fear, but the evidence did not connect those acts to his later demand for sexual intercourse.

Brown testified that the defendant did not hold her down or threaten what would happen if she refused intercourse. Her fear rested on the defendant’s prior conduct rather than on a contemporaneous use or threat of force tied to the sexual act. Although an explicit threat is unnecessary when the total circumstances reasonably show that an unspoken threat compelled submission, this record supported no such inference.

General fear of a defendant, even if justified by past violence, does not by itself establish the force element of rape. Because the State did not show that the defendant used force or a threat of force on June 15 to make Brown submit to intercourse, the trial court should have dismissed the rape charge.