Reynolds v. State
664 P.2d 621 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To convict a defendant of first-degree sexual assault under AS 11.41.410(a)(1), the state must prove that the defendant knowingly engaged in sexual intercourse and recklessly disregarded his victim's lack of consent.
Facts:
- Randall C. Reynolds and J.D. were employees at separate businesses in the Shoppers' Forum mall in Fairbanks.
- On November 24, 1981, after dinner and drinks with Reynolds, his father, and his father's girlfriend, Reynolds took J.D. to his apartment instead of her home.
- At the apartment, Reynolds locked the door with a key, preventing J.D. from leaving.
- Despite J.D.'s verbal objections and attempts to leave, Reynolds had sexual intercourse with her.
- J.D. did not physically resist but was intimidated by the presence of a handgun in the room.
- Reynolds was convicted of first-degree sexual assault and acquitted of kidnapping.
- Reynolds challenged the constitutionality of the sexual assault statute and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the evidence support Reynolds' conviction for first-degree sexual assault, and was the jury properly instructed on the culpable mental state required for the offense?
Opinions:
Majority - Singleton, Judge
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to support Reynolds' conviction for first-degree sexual assault. The state had to prove that Reynolds knowingly engaged in sexual intercourse and recklessly disregarded J.D.'s lack of consent. J.D.'s testimony, if believed, established that Reynolds restrained her by locking the door, ignored her verbal objections, and used some force to engage in intercourse. Reynolds' own statements indicated he was aware of a substantial risk that J.D. did not consent but recklessly disregarded that risk. The jury instructions, taken as a whole, adequately conveyed the culpable mental state required for the offense. The sexual assault statute is constitutional and does not impose cruel and unusual punishment or violate due process or equal protection, because it distinguishes degrees of culpability through sentencing provisions.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the mental state required for first-degree sexual assault under Alaska's revised criminal code. By focusing on the defendant's awareness of the victim's lack of consent rather than the victim's resistance, the statute reflects a modern understanding of sexual offenses. The court's interpretation aligns with the legislature's intent to require proof of the defendant's recklessness regarding lack of consent. The ruling may influence future cases by emphasizing the defendant's perspective and the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the victim consented.
Unlock the full brief for Reynolds v. State