State v. Trackling
609 So. 2d 206, 1992 WL 359145 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction for attempted aggravated rape requires the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed the specific intent to commit vaginal or anal sexual intercourse. Evidence establishing an intent to commit a different sexual act, such as oral sex, is insufficient to sustain a conviction for attempted rape.
Facts:
- Sylvester Trackling and a woman met and agreed to a 'drugs for sex' exchange.
- They traveled to Trackling's home, where he provided cocaine that they both smoked.
- A dispute arose after Trackling allegedly reneged on his promise to provide more drugs.
- During the ensuing physical struggle, Trackling armed himself with a knife.
- Trackling told the victim, 'You're going to suck my thing.'
- The victim had previously testified that she had agreed to have 'sex' with Trackling, without specifying the act.
- When police arrived, they found the victim with only her top removed.
Procedural Posture:
- A jury in the trial court convicted Sylvester Trackling of aggravated battery and attempted aggravated rape.
- The trial court sentenced Trackling, and after he was adjudicated a second felony offender, resentenced him to 50 years at hard labor for the attempted aggravated rape conviction.
- Trackling (appellant) appealed his convictions to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions and sentences, with a minor modification regarding good time eligibility.
- Trackling (applicant) sought review from the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which granted his application to review the sufficiency of the evidence only as to the attempted aggravated rape 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:
Does a defendant's explicit demand for oral sex, coupled with a physical struggle and the victim's partial state of undress, constitute sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt the specific intent required for a conviction of attempted aggravated rape?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A conviction for attempted aggravated rape cannot be sustained without sufficient proof of the defendant's specific intent to engage in anal or vaginal intercourse. The specific intent to accomplish the underlying offense is an indispensable element of an attempt crime. In this case, the only direct evidence of the defendant's intent was his own statement demanding oral sex. The circumstantial evidence, including the physical struggle and the victim's state of undress, was not so inconsistent with the defendant's announced purpose as to exclude the reasonable possibility that he intended to commit the act he explicitly demanded, rather than the act of rape. Therefore, a rational trier of fact could not have found the specific intent for attempted aggravated rape beyond a reasonable doubt.
Dissenting - Lemmon, J. and Marcus, J.
The dissenting judges would have affirmed the conviction, but they did not author a written opinion explaining their reasoning.
Analysis:
This case underscores the critical importance of the specific intent element in attempt crimes, establishing that the prosecution must prove the defendant intended to commit the precise act proscribed by the charged offense, not just a related or similar unlawful act. The ruling clarifies that even in the presence of violence and a clear intent to force sexual contact, a conviction for attempted rape cannot stand if the direct evidence points exclusively to an intent to commit a different sexual offense not charged as a lesser-included crime. This forces prosecutors to be highly specific in their charging decisions, aligning the charge with the direct evidence of the defendant's stated intent.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Trackling