State v. Truelove
2017 ND 283
| N.D. | 2017Background
- Defendant Michael Truelove and victim HFP met at a bar, later went to Truelove’s apartment after drinking; an encounter on a mattress followed.
- HFP testified Truelove ripped off her clothing, exposed and grabbed her breasts, placed his penis against and "within" her inner labia up against the vaginal opening, choked her, tore a chunk of her hair, threatened her life, and seized her phone when she called 911.
- Truelove testified the encounter was partly consensual, stopped when HFP said no, and that any choking occurred after increased resistance in a scuffle.
- A jury convicted Truelove of gross sexual imposition (GSI), terrorizing, interfering with an emergency telephone call, and aggravated assault; Truelove appealed only the GSI conviction challenging sufficiency of evidence.
- The statutory GSI elements at issue: a sexual act (penetration, however slight) and the use of force to compel submission prior to or during the sexual act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence of penetration to prove a sexual act under the statute? | HFP testified Truelove’s penis was within her inner labia and against the vaginal opening, establishing at least slight penetration. | Truelove contended penetration did not occur or was not proven. | Yes. Jury could reasonably find slight penetration from HFP’s testimony. |
| Was there sufficient evidence that force compelled HFP to submit prior to or during the sexual act? | Evidence showed Truelove lay on top of HFP, ripped off clothing, exposed and grabbed breasts, and HFP repeatedly protested — supporting force prior to/during penetration. | Truelove argued force occurred only after any sexual contact; thus statutory compulsion was absent. | Yes. Evidence permitted a reasonable inference that force occurred prior to or during the sexual act, satisfying the statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kinsella, 796 N.W.2d 678 (N.D. 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence — view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- State v. Wanner, 784 N.W.2d 143 (N.D. 2010) (same principle on sufficiency review cited)
- State v. Vantreece, 736 N.W.2d 428 (N.D. 2007) (interpreting that force must compel submission to the sex act and reversing where no evidence of force to restrain victim existed)