ILNews

Consent not defense in battery case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Because consent is not a defense to battery when a deadly weapon is used, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a man's convictions of felony and misdemeanor battery on his girlfriend after branding her with a hot knife and hitting her with a cord.

In Morgan K. Govan v. State of Indiana, No. 02A03-0902-CR-55, Morgan Govan argued there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions because the charges arose out of sadomasochistic sexual practices to which his girlfriend consented. After she lied to Govan about cheating on him, she allowed him to tie her up and testified that she wanted him to hurt her. After touching her with a hot knife and hitting her on the back with an extension cord, she locked herself in the closet and tried to kill herself. After she failed, she told Govan she needed to get her paycheck. He drove her to work where she called police and stayed inside until Govan was in custody.

Both Govan and his girlfriend admitted they liked to do kinky things during sex, and he argued he branded and hit her because she asked him to.

The Court of Appeals cited Jaske v. State, 539 N.E.2d 14, 18 (Ind. 1989), in which the high court held a victim's consent is not a defense to battery, and Helton v. State, 624 N.E.2d 499, 515 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993), when the appellate court found there could be some instances where consent could be a defense to the charge of battery. The ruling noted that consent is ordinarily a defense to the charge of battery in cases involving sexual overtones; it also listed the circumstances in which consent couldn't be defense to battery, including when the use of a deadly weapon is employed.

Even though the instant case has sexual overtones, because Govan used a deadly weapon, his girlfriend's consent isn't a defense, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik. The jury was free to conclude based on the evidence that the girlfriend didn't consent to being beaten with the extension cord or branded with a hot knife, so the appellate court declined to determine whether Govan's actions fell under any of the other Helton categories.

"In such a highly charged domestic case as this, the jury is in the best position to make credibility determinations. We will neither reweigh evidence nor assess witness credibility," she wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT