R. v. G.E.

Charges:

(1) Sexual Assault;
(2) Threatening Bodily Harm

The client, G.E., was charged with having raped a 17 year old girl while he was staying in the girl's home. The client maintained that the sexual intercourse was consensual.

The case proceeded to trial before a Judge sitting with a jury. I suspect that the jury, who found the client not guilty, was impressed by one area of the complainant's evidence given during her cross-examination.

The complainant, who was not a virgin, testified that the client had forced her into his bedroom where he forcibly had non-consensual sexual intercourse with her. Following the rape, she went to the bathroom where she urinated. Thereafter, she went to bed in her own bedroom. The following day, she washed the clothing which she was wearing during the alleged rape.

In cross-examination, I had her meticulously repeat exactly what she did immediately following the alleged rape, including the lowering of her underwear while she urinated. The complainant had earlier testified that her underwear was not removed during the alleged rape and that she was not sure whether or not the client had ejaculated. I brought to the attention of the complainant, and, of course, the jury, that it simply made no sense that a young girl who was forcibly raped would not inspect her underwear for blood or semen, especially since she did not know whether or not the client had ejaculated.

This was a case in which it was appropriate to have a jury. The complainant simply could not be trusted. The complainant had a motive to lie and she had disclosed the alleged rape to her father under peculiar circumstances. The jury did not seem to have much difficulty in acquitting the client.