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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT