State v. Kelso-Christy

One person’s consent to engage in a sexual encounter with another, obtained through the other actor’s fraudulent misrepresentations that he is someone else, does not constitute a valid consent to engage in the sexual encounter.Defendant was convicted of burglary in the third degree after the trial court concluded that Defendant entered S.G.’s residence with the specific intent to commit sexual abuse. At issue was whether S.G. consented to have sex with Defendant when she agreed to have a sexual encounter with Defendant, who was posing as another person. The lower courts concluded that Defendant’s deception did not establish consent to engage in a sexual encounter. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant’s actions denied S.G. the freedom of choice to engage in the sexual encounter, there was substantial evidence to support the finding that Defendant entered S.G.’s home with the intent to commit sexual abuse. View "State v. Kelso-Christy" on Justia Law