State v. Lynch, 2011 R.I. LEXIS 54

Lynch was convicted of four counts of first-degree sexual assault for acts against M.G. in the early 1980s; sentences run concurrently to twenty years with ten years to serve on each count.
M.G., then 12–15 years old at the time, worked for Lynch at Blease Florist and the assaults occurred in the shop’s basement area, often after drinking or smoking.
The assaults included eight instances of Lynch forcing oral sex and one instance where M.G. was forced to perform oral sex on Lynch; on at least one occasion Lynch held M.G. by the arms with substantial force.
M.G. testified he could not resist due to Lynch’s size/strength and fear; he also testified to a pattern and that the abuse spanned several years, ending after retaliation by M.G.
Lynch challenged the sufficiency of evidence, admission of evidence about complainant’s size/age, jury instructions on consent, and admission of testimony about effects on M.G.; two counts were dismissed prior to verdict.
The trial court denied motions for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial; the jury acquitted on three counts and convicted on four.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence on force or coercion	Lynch argues insufficient proof of force/coercion beyond doubt.	Lynch contends acts lacked overcoming resistance given lack of explicit no use.	Evidence supported force/coercion; acquittal/new trial not warranted.
Admissibility of size/age evidence	Evidence aided assessment of resistance reasonableness.	Evidence was improperly admitted (preservation issue).	Admissible; trial court did not abuse discretion.
Consent defense instructions	Court misapplied consent as element of crime.	Consent is a defense, and instruction misstated law.	Correct: consent was a defense, not an element; instruction proper.
Admission of testimony on effects on complainant	Testimony about psychological/emotional impact was probative to credibility.	Testimony was inflammatory and prejudicial; discovery issue.	Testimony admissible for credibility; no reversible error; no mistrial required.

State v. Jacques, 536 A.2d 535 (R.I. 1988) (proof of force/coercion requires overcoming resistance; strength-based analysis)
State v. Carvalho, 122 R.I. 461 (R.I. 1979) (resistance reasonable considering factors like strength and age)
State v. Dinagen, 639 A.2d 1353 (R.I. 1994) (factors for reasonable resistance include age/condition and force exhibited)
State v. Pignolet, 465 A.2d 176 (R.I. 1983) (physically forcing into helpless position supports force requirement)
State v. Rodriguez, 996 A.2d 145 (R.I. 2010) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence and new-trial motions)