ILNews

COA: Date-rape drug made victim 'unaware'

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals today tackled the meaning of "unaware" in the state's statute addressing rape in regards to the victim being under the influence of a known date-rape drug. In Herman Filice v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0707-CR-591, Chief Judge John Baker authored the unanimous opinion that required the court for the first time to address the various legal issues surrounding the defendant's sexual contact with a woman who had Rohypnol in her system during the contact. Filice met the victim, K.S., in Indianapolis at a bar. Filice and his roommate, Amie Moorehead, were in a group with an ex-boyfriend of K.S.'s friend. Early in the evening, K.S. was reported as not having any trouble functioning at the time and went to another bar with her friend to have some drinks. The group headed to another bar, which at this time K.S. became unsteady on her feet and sat slumped over on a couch. The bartender asked Filice's group to take K.S. home because she looked in "pretty bad shape" and was disturbing other customers. Moorehead and Filice took K.S. back to their apartment. There, Moorehead asked K.S. if she wanted a ride home but noticed K.S. was not very lucid and had difficulty nodding her head. Moorehead told K.S. she would take her home and went to bathroom. About five minutes later, she saw K.S. and Filice were naked in his bedroom with K.S.'s legs around him. Moorehead noted K.S. had the same kind of slumped posture she exhibited throughout the night. Moorehead went to her room and went to bed. K.S. didn't remember much of the evening, but did remember Filice putting his penis in her mouth and repeatedly attempting to do so. She testified at trial that she felt like she was floating above herself and wanted to say something but didn't have the ability to do what she wanted. The next day, K.S. went to the hospital and she was examined by a forensic nurse examiner Agnes Purdie. Purdie noted K.S. had bruises on her mouth, shoulder, thighs, and a bite mark on the inside of her thigh. K.S. tested positive for having Rohypnol in her system, which would have been present the night she was assaulted. The state charged Filice with six offenses; Filice filed a motion to dismiss a Class B felony attempted rape charge arguing the statute that defines rape is vague and that the meaning of "unaware" differs as to its application. The trial court denied his motion and he was found guilty of the attempted rape charge and Class B felony criminal deviate conduct; he was sentenced to 10 years on each count to be served concurrently. Filice's main argument on appeal is that Indiana Code Section 35-42-4-1(a)(2) is unconstitutionally vague because it doesn't provide fair notice that attempting to have sexual contact with a person who is able to talk, walk, and perform other routine tasks is prohibited because the person is unaware due to effects of a drug that there's no evidence a defendant would know about. But the Indiana Court of Appeals found sufficient evidence that Filice knew K.S. was unaware of the sexual conduct at the time it occurred. Under Indiana Code, a person who knowingly or intentionally has sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex when the other person is unaware that the sexual intercourse is occurring commits rape.

The appellate court relied heavily on its 2002 decision in Glover v. State, 760 N.E.2d 1120, 1123 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). In Glover, the court adopted the dictionary definition of "unaware" and held that a victim must be unaware the sexual act is occurring for the defendant to be guilty of rape, wrote Chief Judge Baker. The use of the word "unaware" as opposed to "unconscious" leads the court to conclude the term includes, but isn't limited to, unconsciousness, he notes. Because a victim must be unaware, and having Rohypnol in one's system can create an outwardly appearance of unawareness, the language of the statute is adequate to inform a person of ordinary intelligence to know sexual intercourse with someone in a drug-induced state of unawareness is prohibited. Filice's argument that no one can conform to the statute because a person considering having sexual contact with someone who at the time appears to be functioning adequately, but later is unable to remember doing so, could be found guilty of rape. The chief judge notes Filice's argument could be compelling if not for the fact that K.S. wasn't in a condition where she was functioning normally and she was unaware of the act occurring. Filice was there when K.S. had to be removed from the bar, and he took her home in that state. She was in the same state while the two had sexual contact. The state presented sufficient evidence to show K.S. was unaware at the time of sexual contact through Moorehead's testimony and the testimony of a doctor that said someone under the influence of the drug can go in and out of consciousness and would be under the influence of the drug regardless of how you appear. The Court of Appeals affirmed the admittance of K.S.'s drug test as evidence to show she had the drug in her system at the time of the attempted rape and that the state presented sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction for criminal deviate conduct. Regarding the trial court's refusal to tender his proposed jury instruction, Chief Judge Baker wrote that based on the evidence, even if the trial court had given Filice's proposed instruction to the jury, "it would have concluded that there was a high probability that Filice knew that K.S. was unaware while he attempted to have sexual intercourse with her. Therefore, the jury still would have rendered a guilty verdict on the attempted rape charge and Filice has not been prejudiced by any error." However, the appellate court did vacate his sentence and remanded the trial court to shorten it to eight years served concurrently based on the fact that Filice had been a law-abiding citizen up until he committed these crimes, wrote Chief Judge Baker.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT