204 So. 3d 929
Ala. Crim. App.2016Background
- Defendant Brian Frederick Lucas was convicted of attempted first‑degree sodomy and first‑degree sexual abuse; sentences were split and ordered concurrent; appeal followed.
- Victim H.B. woke to feeling something rubbing her face (around nose/upper lip) and saw an erect penis; she later identified Lucas as the man in the house.
- H.B. testified to two prior inappropriate contacts by Lucas when she was a teenager; another witness (M.C.) testified to later inappropriate sexual contact by Lucas while she was asleep.
- Lucas gave an audio‑recorded statement to police after Miranda warnings; defense withdrew a pretrial suppression motion.
- The trial court instructed the jury that H.B.’s lips and mouth were “intimate body parts” as a matter of law; jury convicted on both counts and also was instructed on a lesser included offense (attempted sexual misconduct).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for sexual abuse (touching "intimate parts") | State: evidence showed Lucas’s erect penis contacted H.B.’s nose/mouth while she was helpless, satisfying sexual contact element | Lucas: nose and upper lip are not "intimate parts" within § 13A‑6‑60(3) | Affirmed: viewing evidence in State’s favor, jury could find sexual abuse; touching of mouth/lips qualifies here as intimate parts (court relied on precedent) |
| Trial court instruction that H.B.’s lips/mouth are intimate parts as matter of law | State: trial court may decide what constitutes intimate parts as question of law | Lucas: designation invaded jury’s province to decide intimacy of body parts | Affirmed: court properly decided as a matter of law given precedent (Parker) and facts put defendant on notice |
| Sufficiency for forcible compulsion required for attempted 1st‑degree sodomy | State: evidence of nonconsensual contact while victim helpless supports attempt by forcible compulsion | Lucas: no forcible compulsion shown—no threats, he ceased when victim awoke and resisted | Reversed as to attempted sodomy: evidence insufficient to show forcible compulsion; conviction reduced to lesser included offense (attempted sexual misconduct) and remanded for resentencing |
| Alleged mutually exclusive verdicts (attempted forcible sodomy vs. sexual abuse by helplessness) | Lucas: verdicts inconsistent because forcible compulsion and mental/physical incapacity are mutually exclusive elements | State: issue not preserved; no double‑jeopardy jurisdictional problem raised | Not preserved; claim waived on appeal (no relief) |
| Admission of Lucas’s police statement (Miranda/voluntariness) | Lucas: State failed to lay predicate—didn't show warnings or voluntariness | State: investigator testified Miranda warnings were given and interview was audio recorded; defense withdrew suppression motion | Not preserved: defense withdrew suppression pretrial and did not make contemporaneous specific objection; claim is waived on appeal |
| Admission of collateral‑act evidence under Rule 404(b) (H.B.’s prior incidents and M.C.’s testimony) | Lucas: collateral acts admitted solely to show bad character and were unduly prejudicial | State: evidence offered to show motive/pattern and to corroborate conduct; probative and necessary | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; prior incidents relevant to motive/pattern and M.C.’s testimony corroborative and admissible under 404(b) after balancing |
Key Cases Cited
- D.L.R. v. State, 188 So.3d 720 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015) (actor may "subject" victim to sexual contact by causing the victim to touch the actor’s intimate parts)
- Parker v. State, 406 So.2d 1036 (Ala. Crim. App. 1981) (court may decide as matter of law what body areas qualify as "intimate parts")
- Cockrell v. State, 890 So.2d 168 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003) (remedy: reduce conviction to lesser included offense when higher‑degree offense lacks essential element)
- Ex parte Bankston, 358 So.2d 1040 (Ala. 1978) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on appeal)