State v. Thompson
792 P.2d 1103 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Montana law, the element of "without consent" for the offense of sexual intercourse without consent requires the state to prove the victim was compelled to submit by either physical force or a threat of imminent death, bodily injury, or kidnapping. Threats of non-physical harm, such as preventing a student from graduating, do not satisfy this statutory definition.
Facts:
- Gerald Roy Thompson was the principal and boys' basketball coach at Hobson High School where Jane Doe was a student.
- Between September 1986 and January 1987, Thompson allegedly threatened Jane Doe that she would not graduate from high school.
- Following this threat, Thompson allegedly compelled Doe to engage in an act of oral sexual intercourse.
- A similar incident, involving the same threat and sexual act, allegedly occurred again between February 1987 and June 1987.
- Jane Doe graduated from high school in June of 1987.
- On November 25, 1988, over a year after graduating, Jane Doe wrote a letter to the Hobson School Board describing Thompson's actions against her.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Montana filed an information in the District Court for the Tenth Judicial District, Judith Basin County, charging Gerald Roy Thompson with two counts of sexual intercourse without consent.
- Thompson filed a motion to dismiss these two counts, arguing the supporting affidavit failed to establish probable cause for the element of "without consent."
- The District Court granted Thompson's motion and dismissed the two counts.
- The State of Montana (appellant) appealed the District Court's dismissal to the Supreme Court of Montana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a high school principal's threat to prevent a student from graduating constitute "force" or a "threat of imminent bodily injury" sufficient to establish the element of "without consent" under Montana's sexual intercourse without consent statute, § 45-5-501, MCA?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Sheehy
No. A principal's threat to prevent a student from graduating does not constitute "force" or a "threat of imminent bodily injury" under the plain language of Montana's sexual intercourse without consent statute. The statute specifically defines "without consent" as submission compelled by either physical force or a threat of imminent death, bodily injury, or kidnapping, and no other circumstances suffice. The court adopted the ordinary definition of "force" as physical compulsion, refusing to expand it to include intimidation or fear arising from a position of authority. Furthermore, the threat to prevent graduation was not a threat of bodily injury, and it was not "imminent," as graduation was months away. While the alleged acts are reprehensible, the court's duty is to interpret the statute as written by the legislature, not to rewrite it to encompass acts it does not explicitly cover.
Analysis:
This case exemplifies a strict textualist approach to statutory interpretation in criminal law, where the court refrains from expanding the definition of a crime beyond the clear language enacted by the legislature, even when faced with morally objectionable facts. The decision highlights a significant gap in the then-existing law, where coercion through abuse of authority or non-physical threats fell outside the legal definition of sexual intercourse without consent. This ruling likely served as a catalyst for legislative action to amend sexual assault statutes to include broader definitions of coercion and consent, recognizing that power dynamics and non-physical threats can vitiate consent.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Thompson