Higdon v. State
197 So. 3d 1014
Ala. Crim. App.2014Background
- In summer 2012, 17-year-old Eric Lemont Higdon worked as an intern at Momma’s Place day-care and supervised children, including four-year-old K.S.
- On multiple occasions in August 2012, Higdon accompanied K.S. to the bathroom, pulled down K.S.’s pants, touched his penis, and performed oral sex; K.S. did not initially report because Higdon told him not to tell.
- A parent reported similar conduct by Higdon toward another child; that parent notified K.S.’s mother, leading to K.S.’s disclosure and a child-advocacy interview.
- Higdon was tried (with two related cases) and convicted in one case of (1) first-degree sodomy of a child under 12 (§ 13A-6-63(a)(3)) and (2) first-degree sodomy by forcible compulsion (§ 13A-6-63(a)(1)); sentences were concurrent (23 and 15 years).
- On appeal, Higdon challenged only the sufficiency of evidence for the forcible-compulsion conviction; the Court reversed that conviction and rendered judgment for Higdon, while affirming the conviction for sodomy of a child under 12.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Higdon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported first-degree sodomy by forcible compulsion | Evidence of intern role and age disparity supplied an implied threat/domination sufficient to prove forcible compulsion | No evidence of physical force or express threat; implied-threat theory inapplicable because Higdon was a juvenile intern | Reversed: State failed to prove forcible compulsion (no physical force or qualifying implied threat) |
Key Cases Cited
- Powe v. State, 597 So.2d 721 (Ala. 1991) (an implied threat may be inferred when an adult in a relationship of trust sexually assaults a child)
- Ex parte J.A.P., 853 So.2d 280 (Ala. 2002) (limits Powe: implied-threat inference applies only when the perpetrator is an adult exercising domination/control)
- R.E.N. v. State, 944 So.2d 981 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006) (standards for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on appeal)
- D.W. v. State, 3 So.3d 955 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008) (reversal where no evidence of physical force or qualifying implied threat)
- C.D.B. v. State, 81 So.3d 399 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011) (age/size disparity alone does not establish an implied threat)