Further Update: The court has reissued an opinion in this case. On the issue discussed below, it is very similar -- at a minimum -- to the original opinion. Update: As of April 1, 2009, the Court of Appeals has withdrawn this opinion. I'll post again when the new opinion comes out. The Court of Appeals decided four published cases yesterday, and all of them are interesting. (You can read them all here.) But I want to call particular attention to State v. Streater, in which the defendant was convicted of first-degree rape and first-degree sex offense against his girlfriend's young daughter. The state alleged that the defendant engaged in vaginal and anal intercourse with the victim while her mother was at work. The defendant denied the charges. Apparently, the victim told her aunt what happened, the aunt took the victim to DSS to make a report, and DSS, among other things, had a pediatrician examine the girl. The doctor found several vaginal abnormalities suggestive of abuse, but found that the girl's anal opening was normal. At trial, the prosecutor and the doctor had the following exchange: Q: Based on the history that you received from [the victim], potentially repeated penetration of the defendant's penis into the anal area, would you find that inconsistent with your medical findings of no trauma or would you find that consistent with it? A: I think it was consistent with the findings. She may not, despite having been anally penetrated, she may not have had [...]
Faculty Coordinators
