Anthony De Marco
Toronto Criminal Lawyer

Schedule Your Consultation


R. V. G.E.


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

The client, G.E., was charged with having sexually assaulted a 17 year old girl by having sexual intercourse with her without her consent while he was staying in her 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 concerned with 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 sexual assault, 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 sexual assault.

In cross-examination, I had her repeat exactly what she did immediately following the alleged sexual assault beginning with the lowering of her underwear before she urinated. The complainant had earlier testified that her underwear was not removed during the alleged sexual assault and that she was not sure whether or not the client had ejaculated. The complainant testified that she did not inspect her underwear for blood or semen although 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 in that she thought her boyfriend, whom her father disapproved of, had gotten her pregnant. When her father went to pick her up one night and began scolding her, she disclosed the alleged sexual assault to her father. The jury did not seem to have much difficulty in acquitting the client.