State v. Beckner

“[T]o prove that a particular sexual contact was first-degree sexual abuse, the state must prove not only that the defendant subjected the victim to an act of forcible compulsion, but also that that act resulted in the sexual contact that is the focus of the charge, in the sense that it compelled the victim to submit to or engage in the contact.” State v. Marshall, 350 Or 208, 227 253 P3d 1017 (2011).

Defendant appealed conviction of first-degree sexual abuse.  Defendant assigned error to the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal by the trial court. Defendant argued that the evidence did not meet the elements of first-degree sexual abuse as it did not prove he used physical force as an act of compulsion or the existence of a threat to the victim.  “[T]o prove that a particular sexual contact was first-degree sexual abuse, the state must prove not only that the defendant subjected the victim to an act of forcible compulsion, but also that that act resulted in the sexual contact that is the focus of the charge, in the sense that it compelled the victim to submit to or engage in the contact.” State v. Marshall, 350 Or 208, 227 253 P3d 1017 (2011).  The Court found the threat has to be express or implied and that to meet the elements of first-degree sexual abuse there has to be “‘physical force’ to ‘compel’ someone to ‘submit to or engage in’ sexual contact.”  In addition, the State must establish a causal connection between the force and the contact.  Thus, the Court held that because the State did not have evidence the victim felt compelled to engage in sexual conduct due to physical force or a threat, the evidence was not sufficient to establish first-degree sexual abuse. Reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment of conviction for third-degree sexual abuse and for resentencing.