Utah Supreme Court reverses Warren Jeffs conviction

[_Darth J]

Here you go (it's a pdf):

http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopi ... 072710.pdf

This doesn't mean he's "free." It means he gets a new trial.

[_Sethbag]

I haven't read the opinion, just the news story about it, which explained that the trial judge erred in not instructing the jury that Warren Jeffs explicitly knew that sex would occur between the two people whose marriage he arranged and presided over. Apparently the judge ruled that sex would have been expected and assumed, and therefore it wasn't necessary for the jury to be instructed specifically about whether Jeffs had explicit knowledge beforehand about it.

I will have to go back and read the actual Utah Supreme Court opinion, because this isn't making much sense to me. Are we to assume that Warren Jeffs could have been innocent of rape as an accomplice if there was some reasonable chance that he assumed sex would not occur in this marriage? Since when is that the assumption? Is the Utah Supreme Court stacked with Mormon apologists who believe in unconsummated platonic sealings or something? /boggle

[_Eric]

Since when is that the assumption?

When we're talking about Joseph Smith.

[_harmony]

That whole thing is just sickening.

[_Darth J]

I haven't read the opinion, just the news story about it, which explained that the trial judge erred in not instructing the jury that Warren Jeffs explicitly knew that sex would occur between the two people whose marriage he arranged and presided over. Apparently the judge ruled that sex would have been expected and assumed, and therefore it wasn't necessary for the jury to be instructed specifically about whether Jeffs had explicit knowledge beforehand about it.

I will have to go back and read the actual Utah Supreme Court opinion, because this isn't making much sense to me. Are we to assume that Warren Jeffs could have been innocent of rape as an accomplice if there was some reasonable chance that he assumed sex would not occur in this marriage? Since when is that the assumption? Is the Utah Supreme Court stacked with Mormon apologists who believe in unconsummated platonic sealings or something? /boggle

This is the gist of it (pargraph 29 of the opinion):

Jeffs argues that it was impermissible for the court to
focus the jury on his own position of special trust and on his
own enticing actions in determining whether the intercourse
between Steed and Wall was consensual. Rather, Jeffs contends
that the jury should have been asked to consider whether Steed
was in a position of special trust and whether Steed enticed
Wall. We agree with Jeffs.

The issue is not whether Jeffs intended that they have sex; it is whether Jeffs intended that the sexual intercourse was without Wall's consent.

After the evidence has been presented in a jury trial and the lawyers have made their arguments to the jury, the judge gives the jury instructions about what the law is. The essence of the Utah Supreme Court's ruling is that the jury instructions incorrectly focused on the relationship between Jeffs and Wall, rather than between Wall and Steed (the guy she had been sealed to by Warren Jeffs) for the purpose of deciding whether Wall consented to having sex with Steed.

EDIT: Warren Jeffs was charged with accomplice rape, which means that he knowingly or intentionally caused this girl to have sex without her consent with the Steed guy. So, again, the legal issue is not whether Warren Jeffs knew or intended that sex was going to happen. The issue is whether Warren Jeffs knew or intended that rape was going to happen.

And no, the Utah Supreme Court is not in the tank for the LDS Church at all.

[_Darth J]

This is the accomplice liability statute in Utah that applies to the Warren Jeffs case:

“Every person, acting with the mental state
required for the commission of an offense who directly commits
the offense, who solicits, requests, commands, encourages, or
intentionally aids another person to engage in conduct which
constitutes an offense shall be criminally liable as a party for
such conduct.” Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-202.

The accusation is that Warren Jeffs knowingly or intentionally solicited, requested, commanded, encouraged, or intentionally aided Steed in raping Wall.

EDIT:

Only Steed’s position of special trust or Steed’s efforts of enticement were relevant in determining whether Wall consented to sexual intercourse. Because the consent instructions told the jury that defendant Jeffs’ position of special trust and defendant Jeffs’ enticement of Wall could give rise to a lack of consent, they were erroneous.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I wish this guy would get shanked to death already.

[_beastie]

Why isn't this automatically statutory rape?

[_The Mighty Builder]

Will they let Jeff Bail out of Incarceration? If so I'm sure he will do what Every Mormon Profit involved in Polygamy did - RUN and HIDE.

[Guest]

Why isn't this automatically statutory rape?

That's a good question, beastie. This is one of those time where the public gets angry at the court system, or at defense lawyers who "just want to get their guy off" (never mind that prosecutors just want to get their guy convicted), when the real problem in this case seems to me to be that the prosecutors were stupid.

It is the State---the prosecution---that decides what crimes to charge against a defendant. The State of Utah chose to prosecute Warren Jeffs for accomplice rape. The Cliff's Notes way of explaining that is that Warren Jeffs wanted someone to rape this Wall girl and he helped him do it.

For this charge, you have three statutes in play. One is the accomplice statute that I quoted above. The other is the statute that defines rape, which is pretty simple: rape is sexual intercourse without the consent of the victim. This is where the third statute comes in---the statute that defines various circumstances where sex is without the victim's consent. If you look through the Utah Supreme Court decision linked to in the OP, these are the parts of the "without consent" statute that are relevant to the charges against Warren Jeffs:

An act of sexual intercourse . . . is
without consent of the victim under any of
the following circumstances:
(1) the victim expresses lack of consent through words or conduct;
. . .
(10) the victim is younger than 18 years of age and at the time of the offense the actor was the victim’s parent, stepparent, adoptive parent, or legal guardian or occupied a position of special trust in relation to the victim as defined in Subsection 76-5-404.1(4)(h);
(11) the victim is 14 years of age or older, but younger than 18 years of age, and the actor is more than three years older than the victim and entices or coerces the victim to submit or participate . . . .

If you are looking at this statute, which is how the State decided to prosecute this case, then the ultimate issue is whether Warren Jeffs intended for Steed to have sex with Wall without her consent under one of these definitions.

The problem is, as the Supreme Court explained, the "without consent" elements all have to do with the behavior of the alleged rapist, not the alleged accomplice. Based on the facts summarized in the Supreme Court decision, I have a hard time seeing how you could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Warren Jeffs wanted Steed to rape her. If anything, it sounds like Jeffs wanted Wall to have consensual sex.

What you're talking about, beastie, is called "unlawful sexual activity with a minor" in the Utah Code.

(1) For purposes of this section "minor" is a person who is 14 years of age or older, but younger than 16 years of age, at the time the sexual activity described in this section occurred.

(2) A person commits unlawful sexual activity with a minor if, under circumstances not amounting to rape, in violation of Section 76-5-402, object rape, in violation of Section 76-5-402.2, forcible sodomy, in violation of Section 76-5-403, or aggravated sexual assault, in violation of Section 76-5-405, the actor: (a) has sexual intercourse with the minor; (b) engages in any sexual act with the minor involving the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person, regardless of the sex of either participant; or (c) causes the penetration, however slight, of the genital or anal opening of the minor by any foreign object, substance, instrument, or device, including a part of the human body, with the intent to cause substantial emotional or bodily pain to any person or with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, regardless of the sex of any participant.

(3) A violation of Subsection (2) is a third degree felony unless the defendant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence the mitigating factor that the defendant is less than four years older than the minor at the time the sexual activity occurred, in which case it is a class B misdemeanor.

I think you'd have a more or less airtight case against Warren Jeffs for being an accomplice to unlawful sexual activity with a minor. I think the problem is excessive zeal by the prosecutors. Unlawful sexual activity with a minor is a third degree felony. A third degree felony has a penalty of 0-5 years in prison (the Utah Board of Pardons and Parole, not the judge, decides how much time a person will actually spend in prison in felony cases).

Rape is a first degree felony, which has a penalty of 5 years to life. You can see why a maximum sentence of 5 years (for each count) isn't as impressive as a maximum of life in prison. So the answer to your question, beastie, is it should have been charged as statutory rape, in my opinion.