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. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT