C.D.B. v. State
2011 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 26
Ala. Crim. App.2011Background
- C.D.B., 14, was adjudicated delinquent for first-degree rape of D.E.D., 9.
- Incident occurred July 14, 2009 at L.D.’s apartment while the parents were upstairs.
- The two engaged in sexual intercourse; D.E.D. later noticed vaginal bleeding.
- D.E.D. testified she complied because she was somewhat afraid of C.D.B., though she stated he did not threaten her directly.
- The State argued forcible compulsion existed; the defense contended no force or threat was shown.
- The juvenile court’s delinquency adjudication was reversed and judgment rendered in favor of C.D.B.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of forcible compulsion evidence | C.D.B. did not compel by force or implied threat | State failed to prove forcible compulsion beyond reasonable doubt | Insufficient evidence of forcible compulsion |
| Implied threat between juveniles | Implied threat can be inferred from circumstances | No explicit/implicit communication of harm established | Implied threat not proven based on record facts (no communication of intent to harm) |
| Application of Ex parte J.A.P. to juvenile-to-juvenile case | Ex parte J.A.P. permits implied threats in juvenile cases | Ex parte J.A.P. limited to domination/control scenarios between juveniles and adults | Ex parte J.A.P. does not support required implied threat under these facts; insufficient evidence of forcible compulsion |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Williford, 931 So.2d 10 (Ala. 2005) (defines forcible compulsion in context of surrounding circumstances)
- Parrish v. State, 494 So.2d 705 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985) (totality-of-circumstances approach to forcible compulsion)
- Pittman v. State, 460 So.2d 232 (Ala.Crim.App. 1984) (force relative; youths require different analysis for forcible compulsion)
- Rider v. State, 544 So.2d 994 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989) (fact-specific; relied on for comparison of sufficiency of force/threat evidence)
- Powe v. State, 597 So.2d 721 (Ala. 1991) (implied threat framework in cases of domination/control; limited by later rulings)
- Ex parte J.A.P., 853 So.2d 280 (Ala. 2002) (implied threat analysis in juvenile-on-juvenile context; limitations clarified by later cases)
- J.A.P. v. State, 853 So.2d 264 (Ala.Crim.App. 2001) (discussed in context of implied threat and domination scenarios)