State v. Gomez-Alas, 477 P.3d 911

Background

Defendant Klaus Nico Gomez-Alas was charged with rape (count I) and an infamous crime against nature (count II) after the victim testified he had sexual intercourse with her and performed oral sex (cunnilingus) while she was intoxicated and unconscious; the jury acquitted on rape but convicted of misdemeanor battery (lesser included) and guilty on count II.
Gomez-Alas moved post-trial for a new trial (I.C.R. 34) arguing the court gave an improper “dynamite” instruction, and for judgment of acquittal (I.C.R. 29) arguing insufficient evidence of penetration and nonconsent; the district court denied both motions.
Key factual evidence: the victim testified she awoke to intercourse and felt her vagina being licked; Gomez-Alas admitted licking the victim’s clitoris; medical testimony and a diagram placed the clitoris within the genital/vaginal opening; DNA/saliva evidence in the perineal area was also presented.
The district court concluded (1) Idaho’s infamous-crime-against-nature statutes cover oral acts per os, (2) there was sufficient evidence of "penetration, however slight," and (3) the jury instruction/comments did not coerce a verdict.
On appeal the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed: cunnilingus falls within Idaho Code §§ 18-6605 and 18-6606; the evidence supported slight penetration and a lack of consent (victim intoxicated); and the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding jury deliberation comments.
Justice Stegner dissented, contending the majority improperly rewrote statutory meaning by treating “against the victim’s will” as synonymous with simple lack of consent rather than force/duress and that the Legislature, not the Court, should define consent standards.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Gomez-Alas)	Held
Whether cunnilingus constitutes an "infamous crime against nature" under I.C. §§ 18-6605 & 18-6606	Statutes proscribe all "unnatural carnal copulations" committed per os or per anum; prior Idaho precedent includes oral acts (fellatio), so cunnilingus is included	Statutes ambiguous and historically limited to acts involving male sexual organs; corpus-linguistic/historical interpretation excludes cunnilingus	Court: statutes unambiguous as broadly construed; cunnilingus is included as an "unnatural carnal copulation" committed per os.
Whether evidence supported (a) penetration (however slight) and (b) that the act was committed against the victim’s will	(a) Victim’s testimony she felt licking, defendant’s admission he licked the clitoris, medical diagram, and DNA/saliva evidence permit a reasonable inference of slight penetration; (b) victim was incapacitated by intoxication and thus unable to consent	(a) "Licking" is not penetration; (b) "against the will" requires force, violence, duress, or threats (per nearby statutory definition), not mere lack of affirmative consent	Court: substantial evidence supports slight penetration and that the act occurred without the victim’s consent (victim intoxicated); construed "against the will" as synonymous with "without consent" consistent with constitutional limits.
Whether the trial court’s comments to the jury amounted to an improper "dynamite" instruction requiring a new trial	Court did not coerce the jury; jury was not shown to be deadlocked; comments simply asked jurors whether they wished to continue deliberations	Court’s comments pressured jurors and functioned as a dynamite instruction; judge failed to poll and guide a deadlocked jury	Court: no abuse of discretion—record does not show a definitive deadlock and the court’s statements did not exhort or coerce a verdict.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Altwatter, 29 Idaho 107 (1916) (early Idaho construction holding statute broad enough to cover "other infamous crimes against nature" beyond sodomy)
State v. Carringer, 95 Idaho 929 (1974) (Idaho precedent treating fellatio as within crime-against-nature statute)
State v. Izatt, 96 Idaho 667 (1975) (explicitly holding fellatio is included in Idaho’s crime-against-nature statute)
State v. Johnson, 120 Idaho 408 (1991) (discussing "per os" and "per anum" scope of statute)
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (Due Process prohibits criminalizing private, consensual sexual conduct between adults; does not protect nonconsensual acts)
State v. Holden, 126 Idaho 755 (1995) (Idaho Court of Appeals recognizing statute cannot be enforced to proscribe private consensual conduct; statute may be limited to avoid constitutional conflict)
State v. Flint, 114 Idaho 806 (1988) (establishing Idaho’s prohibition on "dynamite" jury instructions)
State v. Gomez, 137 Idaho 671 (2002) (discussion of jury coercion and improper dynamite instructions)