Maryland Prince George's County Sexual Offense Abuse Charge Evidence Lawyers Attorneys

DAVID JOSEPH LAPIN v

DAVID JOSEPH LAPIN v. STATE OF MARYLAND

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

October 1, 2009, Filed

The victim testified that defendant had earlier stated he was going to cut her breasts off and mount them on the wall. Subsequently victim's father called 911. The appellant was convicted by the Circuit Court for Prince George's County (Maryland) for sexual abuse of a minor, second degree assault, and fourth degree sexual offense. Defendant appealed and argued that the trial court erred in declining to give his proposed jury instruction regarding the definition of "abuse" as it pertained to fourth degree sexual assault and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for the sexual offenses.

Issues:

Whether the trial court erred in declining to give his proposed jury instruction regarding the definition of abuse?

Whether the circuit court erred in its instructions to the jury on the charge of fourth degree sexual offense?

Whether the evidence was insufficient to support the appellant convictions?

The Court held that "In determining the meaning of the term "for the abuse of a party," we turn to well settled principles of statutory interpretation. "'The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature. Statutory construction begins with the plain language of the statute, and ordinary, popular understanding of the English language dictates interpretation of its terminology." The Court further held that the term "sexual contact" included a wrongful touching for three purposes: sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or "for abuse." The Court noted that the three purposes were listed in the disjunctive, and therefore, it rejected the argument that a conviction could not be upheld if the touching was not for sexual arousal or gratification. Rather, pursuant to the statute, a touching "for the abuse" of a party would constitute sexual contact. The plain language of the words used by the General Assembly do not support appellant's argument that the term "abuse" in the statute is limited to physical injury. Rather, the plain language of the statute supports the conclusion that the term "abuse" includes a touching for the purpose of physical, mental, emotional, or sexual injury. Even with our interpretation of the term "abuse," in the context of sexual contact, sexual child abuse remains a broader crime than a fourth degree sexual offense, and our decision is not inconsistent with the above cases. It is consistent, however, with the plain language of the statute and the legislative history. Appellant's proposed jury instruction, that "abuse" means a physical attack with the intent to inflict sexual injury, was not a correct statement of law. His proposed definition of "abuse" was too narrow. Accordingly, the circuit court properly declined to give the requested instruction.

Whether the evidence was insufficient to support the appellant convictions?

The Court held thatthere was sufficient evidence to support appellant's conviction for fourth degree sexual offense. Although appellant testified that he did not touch the victim for sexual arousal or gratification, or to harm her, the jury was free to disbelieve his testimony. There were sufficient facts for the jury to infer that appellant touched the victim on the breast and between her legs for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse. These statements, in conjunction with appellant's repeated touching of the victim, were sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that appellant touched the victim for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, or for abuse. There was sufficient evidence to support appellant's convictions.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

Maryland Prince George's County Sexual Offense Abuse Charge Evidence Lawyers Attorneys

By: Atchuthan Sriskandarajah

POST COMMENT

Divorce Lawyer Athens Georgia Maryland Queen Anne's County Sexual Molestation Abuse Criminal Nature Lawyers Attorneys How divorce lawyers can help you Maryland Baltimore County Sexual Offense Charge Sodomy Lawyers Attorneys Montgomery No Substitute for an Encountered Divorce Lawyer How Lawyers Can Make Things Right For You Top 5 Retirement Myths Hiring an Accident Lawyer Charge Buildings Acceptable to Accident Lawyers Passing a Bar Exam: Guidelines for Future Lawyers to Succeed Plan Protection Early with an IP Lawyer Americans Are US$6.6 Trillion Short Of What Is Needed For Retirement Retirement Investing - Form of Ventures