Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D attended a birthday party. All nine people at the party were drinking and some were smoking marijuana. D was noticeably intoxicated after consuming between two and twenty-four beers and several glasses of tequila. He was asked to leave after he was accused of 'grabbing all the girls' butts.' D left and returned to the trailer with a gun. D held the four remaining occupants of the trailer hostage while he attempted to find a woman who had already left the party. D ordered one of the hostages to remove all of the telephones in the trailer, took the phones, and forced seventeen-year-old H.S. to leave with him. D and H.S. walked to a cornfield where D forced H.S. to remove her clothes and then raped her. When she complained that he was hurting her, D performed oral sex on her and then raped her several more times. The pair then walked three and one-half miles to D's house, hiding in ditches when cars passed. D took H.S. to the basement and again raped her. Both D and H.S. then fell asleep. Early that morning, the police arrived and found D asleep next to H.S. with a loaded weapon near his right hand and his left hand around H.S.'s neck. The trial court gave the following instruction: 'Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to the charge of Rape and Confinement. You may not take voluntary intoxication into consideration in determining whether the Defendant acted knowingly or intentionally, as alleged in the information.' D was convicted of rape and criminal confinement and was sentenced to forty years imprisonment. D appealed. D argues that it was error to give the voluntary intoxication instruction. The Court of Appeals found that D had provided no independent analysis supporting a due course of law claim under the Indiana Constitution, and therefore evaluated this issue under federal due process doctrine. It held that there was no federal due process violation. D appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co