State v. R. Lerman
2018 MT 5
| Mont. | 2018Background
- Defendant Randall Lerman, a licensed massage therapist, treated Kelsey Stoker for back pain; at the fourth session he exposed and manipulated her undergarments and breasts.
- During the session Lerman reportedly inserted fingers into Stoker’s vagina and later rubbed her clitoris for several minutes despite Stoker’s repeated objections to stop.
- Stoker felt threatened, was alone with Lerman after hours, and testified she feared resisting because of his larger size; she reported the incident the same night.
- Lerman was charged with and convicted by a Beaverhead County jury of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent; sentenced to 40 years with 35 suspended.
- On appeal Lerman challenged sufficiency of evidence as to (1) penetration and (2) force; the District Court denied a motion to dismiss and this Court reviewed under the standard of viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the State.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence established penetration (element of "sexual intercourse") | State: Digital penetration and clitoral rubbing satisfy statutory definition of vulvar penetration, "however slight." | Lerman: Clitoral rubbing alone does not constitute penetration of the vulva; insufficient evidence. | Court: Both digital penetration and clitoral contact suffice; clitoral contact can cause "however slight" vulvar penetration. Conviction supported. |
| Whether evidence established force (lack of consent) | State: Victim’s objections, defendant’s persistence after objections, isolation, and size disparity support a finding that victim was compelled to submit by force or reasonable fear. | Lerman: Absent threats or bodily injury, petitioner relies on Haser/Stevens to argue emotional reaction and nonresistance are insufficient to prove force. | Court: Distinguishing Haser and Stevens, found totality (isolation, size difference, repeated objections ignored) permitted a rational jury to infer force/threat; conviction supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Haser, 20 P.3d 100 (Mont. 2001) (reversed conviction where victims’ shock/embarrassment without threats or inflicted bodily injury was insufficient to prove force)
- State v. Stevens, 53 P.3d 356 (Mont. 2002) (reversed some convictions where victims’ protests caused immediate cessation and State conceded no threats; physical helplessness theory rejected)