Metzger v. State

• Decision Date: 29 June 1990
• Citation: 565 So.2d 291
• Parties: Edwin Arthur METZGER, Jr. v. STATE. CR 89-263.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 291

565 So.2d 291

Edwin Arthur METZGER, Jr. v. STATE.

CR 89-263.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 29, 1990.

William P. Powers, Columbiana, for appellant.

Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Beth Jackson Hughes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

JAMES H. FAULKNER, Retired Justice.

Edward Arthur Metzger, Jr., was indicted and convicted for rape in the second degree in violation of Ala.Code, 1975, § 13A-6-62(a)(2). He was sentenced as a habitual offender to 15 years' imprisonment, to serve a split sentence of three years in the penitentiary and five years on probation.

His sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal ¹ on the ground that the State failed to prove that the victim was mentally defective.

Because a motion for judgment of acquittal tests the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, where the evidence, if believed, is sufficient to sustain a conviction, the trial court's denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal is not error. Manning v. State, 471 So.2d 1265, 1267 (Ala.Cr.App.1985).

"In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction, this Court must accept as true the evidence introduced by the State, accord the State all legitimate inferences therefrom, and consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution." Faircloth v. State, 471 So.2d 485, 489 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), aff'd, 471 So.2d 493 (Ala.1985). Where, moreover, the State establishes a prima facie case, conflicting evidence presents a jury question which is not subject to review on appeal. See Willis v. State, 447 So.2d 199, 201 (Ala.Cr.App.1983).

To establish a prima facie case of rape in the second degree under § 13A-6-62(a)(2), the State must establish that a male "engage[d] in sexual intercourse with a female who [was] incapable of consent by reason of being mentally defective."

Section 13A-6-60(5) defines "mentally defective" to mean "that a person suffers from a mental disease or defect which renders him incapable of appraising the nature of his conduct."

In support of his contention that the State failed to prove that the victim was "mentally defective," Metzger cites the cases of Stephenson v. State, 35 Ala.App. 379, 48 So.2d 255, cert. denied, 254 Ala. 313, 48 So.2d 259 (1950), and Smith v. State, 345 So.2d 325 (Ala.Cr.App.1976), writ quashed, 345 So.2d 329 (Ala.1977). In these cases convictions for common-law rape were reversed based upon the State's failure to prove the victims' lack of mental capacity to consent.

These cases are easily distinguishable from the case at bar. Stephenson and Smith were decided prior to the enactment of § 13A-6-62(a)(2) and utilized standards for ascertaining mental capacity which were modeled on decisions from other jurisdictions. Most importantly, in Stephenson and Smith the State failed to produce any expert testimony on the mental capabilities of the victims.

In the case at bar, however, there was sufficient lay and expert evidence presented by the State to allow the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was mentally defective and that Metzger was guilty of the crime as charged.

The victim was certified by the trial court as competent to testify. The evidence of record reveals testimony of the victim to the effect that: 1) she was 29 years old and had lived with her mother all of her life; 2) she had attended a school for the mentally retarded for seven years, where she learned to print her name and count to ten; 3) she cannot spell, is not employed, and receives a Social Security disability check each month; 4) on two occasions in October 1987, Metzger, who was the victim's brother-in-law, took off her clothes and...