On Trial EXAMINE THE FACTS OF A SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE by Elizabeth Beauvais graphic by Chris Chan This week, Circuit Court case CR 97-218 Commonwealth v. Guerrini will be heard in Charlottesville. The case, involving two U.Va. students, fourth year Keith Guerrini and the third-year victim, is based on a sexual assualt charge involving the physical helplessness of the complaining witness. The defendant is charged with "animate object sexual penetration" for an offense allegedly committed last January. The Commonwealth will have to prove that the defendant sexually penetrated the victim and that the act was accomplished through the victim's mental incapacity or physical helplessness. There is no allegation in the case that the act was accomplished by force, threat, or intimidation. It is likely that the case will be heard within the U.Va. judicial system later this semester, regardless of the ruling of this week's criminal trial. As students of this university, we must be aware of the complexities of current sexual assault litigation and the seriousness of the trial procedure for both sides. The account of what occurred on the evening in question last January draws primarily from the victim's testimony at the preliminary hearing in May. The victim and the defendant attended her sorority semiformal, where both parties were drinking. That evening, the victim made and consumed three sixteen-ounce cups of Captain Morgan's Spiced Rum and Diet Coke. Later, the defendant offered to make her a fourth drink. The victim testified in the preliminary hearing that she noticed that the drink was a lighter color than the ones she had made herself. After consuming half to three-fourths of the drink, the victim claims she became ill, complaining that her head was "fuzzy" and that she had a bad stomachache. Guerrini and the victim then left the party and returned to the victim's apartment. The victim testified that she continued to feel ill and only remembers fragments of the events in her apartment. During the cross-examination of the preliminary hearing, the defense attorney concentrated on the victim's lack of memory of events that evening, in order to question her state of helplessness. The victim testified that she does not recall whether or not she invited Guerrini into her apartment, only that she remembered him being there. She recalls watching a movie with the defendant and then lying down on a daybed against the wall in the same room. She then claimed that the defendant laid down next to her and began to kiss and rub her. She also recalls a roommate entering the room and holding a conversation with her. After the roommate left, the victim testified that the defendant inserted his finger into her vagina, and she felt pain. She denies any responsive movement, describing a helpless feeling wherein her "brain was not connected to her muscles." She testified that during this time her eyes were closed, and she did not move. She is not sure whether or not penile insertion occurred. The victim testified that at some point she found that she could turn on her side and pulled her knees up, then later went into her bedroom and sat crying and shaking on her roommate's bed. The defendant came into her bedroom and left after a brief conversation. The victim then told her roommate that she had been raped by the defendant, called her parents, and then went to the University of Virginia Medical Center Emergency Room. Laboratory tests of blood and urine taken at the hospital indicated that the blood alcohol level of the victim was 0.13. The U.Va. Hospital reports disclosed nothing other than alcohol and marijuana in her bloodstream. A blood sample tested later at the Division of Forensic Science indicated trace amounts of depressant drugs diazepam (Valium), chlordiapoxide (Librium), and nordiazepam, which can be a metabolite of diazepam although it also exists as a separate drug. Flunitrazepam and its metabolite, 7 amino flunitrazepam, the scientific name for the drug Rohypnol, were not found in the lab tests. However, Rohypnol is a member of the drug family benzobiazepimes, which includes Valium, Librium, and Xanax -- all of which produce tranquilizing effects. The complaining witness denied use of marijuana within 24 hours prior to the alleged incident. She denied any voluntary use of Librium or Valium. She testified at the preliminary hearing that although she was feeling the effects of alcohol, she felt no impairment related to her alcohol consumption. Sarah Anderson, the nurse who examined the victim at the U.Va. Emergency Room, described finding an area of redness and tenderness on the external genitalia and testified that the examination was painful to the victim. Dr. James Valentour, the Chief Forensic toxicologist for the State Division of Forensic Toxicology, stated at the preliminary hearing that the concentrations of diazepam and chlordiapoxide were found only in trace amounts and that the effect of the drugs, even in conjunction with alcohol, would likely be "virtually insignificant." The Commonwealth must prove that any sexual penetration was without the victim's consent and that the act was accomplished through the use of the complaining witness' mental incapacity or physical helplessness. According to section 18.2-67.10 of the Virginia Code, "mental incapacity" is a condition that prevents the complaining witness from understanding the nature or consequences of the act involved. "Physical helplessness" refers to unconsciousness or any other condition which renders the complaining witness physically unable to communicate an unwillingness to act. Both terms apply only to the time of the alleged offense and prescribe that the accused knew or should have known about the condition. It is questionable whether the trace amounts of Librium and Valium present in the victim's blood at the time of the alleged incident are relevant to whether the victim was mentally incapacitated or physically helpless at the time of the incident. Dr. Valentour testified that he cannot say with any degree of certainty that the small amounts of either drug would have had any effect on the victim or would have produced the state she described. The defending party filed a motion contending that there is no conclusive evidence that the victim was "drugged." The defense claimed that the innuendo and inference characterized this evidence and that it should be excluded from the jury as loosely circumstantial and probative. The defense attorneys cited precedent cases to prove that "circumstantial evidence is probative if it allows the trier of fact to infer an issue in the case. Such an inference must be 'reasonable', otherwise the evidence is 'too remote'." (Hughes v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 576 1993). The motion also pointed out that if inflammatory evidence may have the potential to prejudice jurors, its probative value must outweigh its prejudice if it is included in the jury trial (Nicholas v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 188, 192-193 1992). The defense emphasized that Dr. Valentour disproved any rational relationship between the drugs found in the victim's system and her state of physical helplessness. In terms of relevance to the case, the court concluded that evidence of these trace amounts of tranquilizing drugs does not tend to prove a fact relating to the victim's mental incapacity or physical helplessness. Yet the court added that the motion in limine would not be granted because proving helplessness was not the sole purpose of offering laboratory results. The Commonwealth claims to offer the laboratory results on the issue of the defendant's intent to commit the crime. The Commonwealth also seeks to prove that the defendant's intent was to create a situation wherein the victim would be unable to communicate a lack of consent to sexual activity. Thus, the Court did not accept the argument that the drug evidence is speculative or prejudicial enough to be excluded from the jury. The Commonwealth attorney has set the charge as "object sexual penetration," which holds the same strength as a rape charge. Between production and distribution of this week's Declaration, the trial will have been heard at the Circuit Courthouse and a verdict pronounced. All information on this case was gathered from public document CR 97-218 Commonwealth v. Guerrini. As students, we read and hear of sexual assault statistics, public safety, and rape awareness through many forms of media during our time at U.Va. And in a collegiate setting, the realities of individual cases of alleged sexual assault and actual sexual assault are hardly without questions that at times challenge and at times reaffirm the rhetoric we hold. Thus, we must seek out a factual and fair following of the Commonwealth v. Guerrini case in order to foster an awareness and a new discourse among ourselves on the dynamics and seriousness of student litigation involving sexual assault. No doubt most of us will find several points of relevance in the proceedings.

back to Decweb main