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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT