State v. Dipetrillo

Facts

Jane, was nineteen years old when she began working for D as a draftsperson. Jane was studying architectural building and engineering. She was hired by D, then thirty years old, as a draftsperson to work on projects for both commercial and residential clientele. On March 20, 2002, D asked Jane to work late, to assist in setting up a design library in the company's basement. The work day ended at 4:30 p.m., but rather than begin work on the project immediately, D suggested that he and Jane run some 'errands' first. D then drove the two of them to a Chinese restaurant to pick up takeout food, then to a liquor store to buy a twelve-pack of beer, and finally to his house, where D changed his clothes. The pair returned to the office at 5:30 p.m. and consumed the food, and two beers each, before commencing work around 6:15 p.m. D offered Jane another beer, which she consumed, and he then asked her to come into his office to sort magazines. D offered her a fourth beer, which she drank while D sat behind his desk. D then asked Jane to come over to his desk. When she did so, he grabbed her by the wrist, pulled her onto his lap, and began kissing her. According to Jane, she initially did not react and she kissed him back. But then she protested, telling D 'we can't do this' and that he was her boss. D physically moved her from his lap onto the seat of the chair. With his hands placed on each of the chair's arms, he stood over her and continued kissing her; he also put his hand under her shirt and touched her breast. Jane testified that she was in fear, tried to avoid the kissing by moving her face away, and repeatedly told D to 'stop it; he was my boss, we couldn't do this.' She also tried to stop him from touching her breast by telling him several times 'no, we have to stop' and then pushing his hand away. D continued his assault by pulling Jane's pants and underwear down to her knees and then digitally penetrating her vagina with one of the fingers of his right hand for approximately a minute. Scared and in shock, Jane again told D 'we have to stop;' she stood up, restored her clothing, and attempted to walk away. D grabbed her around the waist and forcibly held her there while he masturbated, spilling some of his ejaculation on her stomach. Although Jane tried to push him away, he would not release her until he had finished masturbating. Jane then walked away, stopped in the bathroom to clean up, and then carried a box of magazines to the basement. D [then] came downstairs to the basement to see what she doing, and she said she was done, she was going to get going, and he pushed her up against and he kissed her. D then said, 'We shouldn't tell anybody about what happened.' At approximately 7:30 p.m., Jane left the building. The next day, D had Jane bring him lunch and repeated that '[they] shouldn't tell anybody about what had happened.' Later that day, in the context of expressing her discomfort about traveling with D on an upcoming business trip, Jane confided in a supervisor and disclosed the events of the previous evening. The following Monday, Jane called in sick and gave a statement to the North Providence police. She quit her job the next day. In due course, a grand jury returned a two-count indictment against D. D claimed consent. D insisted that he had also performed cunnilingus on Jane, who, he said, was a willing participant. The judge and defense counsel agreed that the only issue is whether or not the state can prevail on its claim that these sexual encounters occurred as a result of force and coercion. At no point did D challenge the sufficiency of the evidence nor did D request specific findings by the trial justice based on Rule 23(c). The trial justice found D guilty on both counts. The trial court held that 'All of the ingredients were present on the evening of March 20th for the D to overbear the will of this diminutive and attractive young girl, either by the very authority that he represented or by a modicum of physical force. As it turned out, and as I so find from the credible evidence before me, both of those circumstances occurred. I find from the credible evidence that all of the relevant hallmarks of force or coercion that I outlined earlier, both physical as well as psychological, were part and parcel of the defendant's misconduct.' The trial justice found that Jane's testimony, in particular, was 'unembellished and unvarnished, and, in a word, credible.” D filed a motion for a new trial. Jane testified that after the assault, there was a time in which she drank alcohol to get intoxicated, which she attributed to the stress of the upcoming trial and to school-related pressure. She took sleeping pills, as prescribed by her family physician, and admitted that on occasion she smoked marijuana. She also testified, however, that there was never a time when she did not remember specific, significant events in her life. The defendant argued that this evidence raised serious issues about Jane's memory and her credibility and requested that the court either enter a verdict of not guilty or grant a new trial. The court denied the motion. D appealed. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.