Durr v. State
| Citation | 229 Ga.App. 103,493 S.E.2d 210 |
| Decision Date | 23 October 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. A97A1621,A97A1621 |
| Parties | , 97 FCDR 3967 DURR v. The STATE. |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
L. Clark Landrum, Tifton, for appellant.
C. Paul Bowden, District Attorney, Holli G. Martin, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Darrell Durr was charged with rape and aggravated sodomy. A jury found him guilty of rape and not guilty of aggravated sodomy. His motion for new trial was denied.
Durr admitted having sexual relations with the victim, but maintained that the sex was consensual. His partner, however, was a developmentally disabled woman who, although twenty-one years old chronologically, had a mental age of between five and six. A psychologist testified that the victim's I.Q. was 36, placing her in the moderately mentally handicapped category.
1. Durr contends the trial court erred in charging the jury that the element of force necessary to support a rape conviction was automatically supplied by law. Durr's enumeration mischaracterizes the actual charge.
The court charged the jury that "in cases of incapacity to consent the element of force is automatically supplied by law." (Emphasis supplied.) And this portion of the charge was preceded by other careful instruction: the three elements necessary to a rape conviction, i.e., carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly, and against her will; and detailed instruction, taken from Drake v. State, 239 Ga. 232, 236 S.E.2d 748 (1977), regarding the effect on these elements of a victim's incompetence to consent. In Drake, the Supreme Court noted that " Id. at 234-235(1), 236 S.E.2d 748.
Here, the trial court charged the jury that "when the alleged victim is physically or mentally incompetent to knowingly and intelligently give consent to the sexual act, then the requirement of force is found in what is called constructive force, that is, in the use of such force as is necessary to effect the penetration made by the defendant, if any."
The trial court also charged the jury that the State's burden could not be discharged by a mere showing that the alleged victim suffered from a mental disability; the State had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim's disability rendered her incapable of knowing and intelligent consent to the alleged sexual act, and whether or not the State had discharged this burden was for the jury to decide. This charge was an accurate statement of the law, and it did not mislead the jury. See generally Ely v. State, 192 Ga.App. 203, 206(5), 384 S.E.2d 268 (1989).
2. Durr also asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of rape because the evidence showed no forcible act and also showed that the victim was able to consent and did so.
Durr is correct that the evidence presented at trial did not prove that the rape was committed with actual force. 1 And the element of force must be proved when a defendant is charged with forcible rape upon a minor victim. We note that although the special concurrence insists that cases decided by our Supreme Court subsequent to Drake have essentially overruled Drake sub silentio in this regard, none of the cases cited in the special concurrence is a case in which the defendant was charged with forcible rape. Cooper v. State, 256 Ga. 631, 352 S.E.2d 382 (1987), involved aggravated sodomy; Richardson v. State, 256 Ga. 746, 353 S.E.2d 342 (1987), involved sodomy and incest; and Brown v. State, 268 Ga. 154, 486 S.E.2d 178 (1997), involved malice murder, to which the defendant interposed a defense of justification because he acted to prevent the molestation of his five-year-old child. See also Luke v. State, 222 Ga.App. 203, 474 S.E.2d 49 (1996). But Drake holds that a defendant may be convicted of forcible rape even absent a showing of actual force when the crime is committed against an adult female incapable of giving knowing and intelligent consent to the act. Id. at 234, 236 S.E.2d 748. The principle in Drake is applicable only when the charge is forcible rape of a minor; it is applied to preserve the distinction between forcible rape and statutory rape. Otherwise, the statute making the latter a crime is meaningless. When the victim is not a child but a mentally incapacitated adult incapable of giving valid consent to a sexual act, the principle mandating that force be proved is simply not applicable. The jury in this case was properly instructed that the issue of whether the victim was capable of knowingly and intelligently consenting to sexual intercourse was for the jury to decide. Whitaker v. State, 199 Ga. 344, 349-350(1), 34 S.E.2d 499 (1945).
The jury asked to be recharged on this issue, and a detailed recharge was given, after which the jury indicated that its question had been answered. The verdict shows that the jury believed the victim was incapable of giving knowing and intelligent consent, and the evidence presented supports that conclusion.
The victim testified she did not want Durr to have sex with her and that she tried to scream but was afraid to do so. She testified she could not read and could write only minimally. Two police officers testified that it was readily apparent that the victim was retarded, and the State and Durr stipulated to her retardation. The State's expert witness, a school psychologist certified by the State, testified she had evaluated the victim twice and that the victim's mental age and capacity were equivalent to that of a child between the ages of five and six. The victim therefore had the intellectual capacity and understanding of a five- to six-year-old child, characterized by a short memory, the need for short answers, and an inability to relate cause and effect.
Given this evidence, the jury was authorized to conclude that the victim was unable to give proper consent to sexual intercourse. It follows that notwithstanding the lack of evidence of force, the evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury to convict Durr of rape under the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Drake, supra; Whitaker, supra.
Judgment affirmed.
I concur specially because of the statement in Division 2 that "the element of force must be proved when a defendant is charged with forcible rape upon a minor victim." Drake v. State, 239 Ga. 232, 232-235(1), 236 S.E.2d 748 (1977), involving a nine-year-old girl, does say that. But a decade later, the Supreme Court said in Cooper v. State, 256 Ga. 631(2), 352 S.E.2d 382 (1987), that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collins v. State
...force at the time of Collins' acts in 1994, his conviction of rape must be affirmed. See the special concurrence in Durr v. State, 229 Ga.App. 103, 493 S.E.2d 210 (1997). This Court's opinion in Edmonson v. State, 219 Ga.App. 323, 324(2), 464 S.E.2d 839 (1995), should not be overruled. The ......
-
Gibbins v. State
...203(1), 474 S.E.2d 49. Some believe, however, that this holding in Drake is no longer effective (see, e.g., Durr v. State, 229 Ga.App. 103, 105, 493 S.E.2d 210 (special concurrence)) because of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Cooper v. State, 256 Ga. 631(2), 352 S.E.2d 382 that "[s]exu......
-
Johnson v. State
...whether or not the State had discharged this burden was for the jury to decide." (punctuation omitted)); accord Durr v. State , 229 Ga. App. 103, 104 (1), 493 S.E.2d 210 (1997).8 Chester , 328 Ga. App. at 889 (1), 763 S.E.2d 272 (punctuation and emphasis omitted); accord Clark v. State , 19......
-
Johnson v. State, A19A1064
...act, and whether or not the State had discharged this burden was for the jury to decide." (punctuation omitted)); accord Durr v. State , 229 Ga. App. 103, 104 (1), 493 S.E.2d 210 (1997).8 Chester , 328 Ga. App. at 889 (1), 763 S.E.2d 272 (punctuation omitted); accord Clark v. State , 197 Ga......