ILNews

Judges disagree on intent issue in rape trial

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A panel of Indiana Court of Appeals judges disagreed as to whether a defendant in a rape case put his intent at issue during trial by attempting to show his victim consented to sex with him.

In Otho L. Lafayette v. State of Indiana, No. 45A03-0803-CR-118, Otho Lafayette was charged with eight counts, including rape and sexual battery, following an incident with a woman, C.E., who he met at a gas station. They exchanged phone numbers and spoke by phone several times over the course of a month until Lafayette suggested they go to dinner. They met and he took her at gunpoint to an apartment where he raped her.

At trial, the state wanted to have another woman, E.C., testify. Lafayette was convicted of attempting to rape E.C. in 1997. The trial court admitted E.C.'s testimony pursuant to Ind. Evid. Rule 404(b) over Lafayette's objections.

At issue in the appeal is whether E.C.'s testimony should have been allowed. Judges Terry Crone and James Kirsch, who concurred in a separate opinion, found the testimony shouldn't have been admitted to show what Lafayette's intent was with C.E. The state suggested Lafayette put his intent at issue when he gave a statement to police that the sex was consensual and when his counsel explored the issue of C.E.'s credibility during voir dire and opening statements. This meant the state should be able to use the 404(b) evidence to show contrary intent, the state argued.

The majority ruled that a criminal defendant doesn't put his intent at issue at any stage of the proceedings merely by questioning a victim's credibility, wrote Judge Crone. Also by asserting an alleged rape victim consented to sex doesn't present a claim of particular contrary intent for purposes of 404(b). Based on Indiana Supreme Court precedent, the majority held E.C.'s testimony wasn't admissible to prove whether C.E. consented to having sex with Lafayette. They also ruled E.C.'s testimony shouldn't have been allowed under Ind. Evid. Rule 402.

The judges found the admittance of E.C.'s testimony to not be a harmless error and believed it prejudicially impacted the jury and contributed to Lafayette's guilty verdict. The majority remanded for a new trial.

Judge Nancy Vaidik dissented because she believed Lafayette put his intent at issue during trial and the evidence of his previous attempted rape was relevant. Because he admitted he had sex with C.E., the relevant intent in this case is Lafayette's intent to use or threaten force. The Court of Appeals has previously ruled where a defendant in a rape case alleges the sex was consensual, the defendant placed his contrary intent at issue for the purpose of Rule 404(b), wrote Judge Vaidik. Transcripts of the trial show his defense counsel avoided the terms "consent" or "consensual" but still placed Lafayette's contrary intent - the victim's consent - at issue.

Judge Vaidik also wrote Lafayette's previous attempted rape conviction is admissible under Evid. Rule 402 because it revealed a nearly identical scenario in how Lafayette met both women and got them alone to attack them.

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. All the lawyers involved in this don't add up to a hill of beans; mostly yes-men punching their tickets for future advancement. REMF types. Window dressing. Who in this mess was a real hero? the whistleblower that let the public know about the torture, whom the US sent to Jail. John Kyriakou. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/us/ex-officer-for-cia-is-sentenced-in-leak-case.html?_r=0 Now, considering that Torture is Illegal, considering that during Vietnam a soldier was court-martialed and imprisoned for waterboarding, why has the whistleblower gone to jail but none of the torturers have been held to account? It's amazing that Uncle Sam's sunk lower than Vietnam. But that's where we're at. An even more unjust and pointless war conducted in an even more bogus manner. this from npr: "On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier." Today, the US itself has become lawless.

  2. "Brain Damage" alright.... The lunatic is on the grass/ The lunatic is on the grass/ Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs/ Got to keep the loonies on the path.... The lunatic is in the hall/ The lunatics are in my hall/ The paper holds their folded faces to the floor/ And every day the paper boy brings more/ And if the dam breaks open many years too soon/ And if there is no room upon the hill/ And if your head explodes with dark forbodings too/ I'll see you on the dark side of the moon!!!

  3. It is amazing how selectively courts can read cases and how two very similar factpatterns can result in quite different renderings. I cited this very same argument in Brown v. Bowman, lost. I guess it is panel, panel, panel when one is on appeal. Sad thing is, I had Sykes. Same argument, she went the opposite. Her Rooker-Feldman jurisprudence is now decidedly unintelligible.

  4. November, 2014, I was charged with OWI/Endangering a person. I was not given a Breathalyzer test and the arresting officer did not believe that alcohol was in any way involved. I was self-overmedicated with prescription medications. I was taken to local hospital for blood draw to be sent to State Tox Lab. My attorney gave me a cookie-cutter plea which amounts to an ALCOHOL-related charge. Totally unacceptable!! HOW can I get my TOX report from the state lab???

  5. My mother got temporary guardianship of my children in 2012. my husband and I got divorced 2015 the judge ordered me to have full custody of all my children. Does this mean the temporary guardianship is over? I'm confused because my divorce papers say I have custody and he gets visits and i get to claim the kids every year on my taxes. So just wondered since I have in black and white that I have custody if I can go get my kids from my moms and not go to jail?

ADVERTISEMENT