Lawyers, why didn't the State charge Everson with both 2nd and 3rd degree sex. aslt?

[hawkfan340]

My understanding is that the only difference between the two is that with 2nd degree Everson would have had to be aided and abetted by Satterfield. It now looks as if Everson could get off free since Satterfield testified that he didn't know what was happening in the bed, therefore he wasn't aiding and abetting. If they had charged him with 3rd degree as well, then they could still have gotten him. They can still reduce the charges, but both sides would have to agree.

I was on a jury in Polk county where a man was charged with a range of degrees of sexual assault. I believe the judge instructed us to consider the highest charge first, and if we couldn't convict, then go to the next one and so on. Therefore I don't think this could be a double jeopardy situation.

(EDIT: maybe this was backwards and we were supposed to consider the lowest charge first and then move up. Can't remember.)

What's the deal? Was it a gamble by the State that could now blow up in there faces?

 

[9YRPLAN]

Re: Lawyers, why didn't the State charge Everson with both 2nd and 3rd degree sex. as

Satterfield was charged twice because he is accused of two separate acts...having sex without consent, and helping someone else have sex without consent.

Everson was not involved in the alleged rape by Satterfield that resulted in his 3rd degree charge.

the 2nd degree charges are relating to them working together to allow Everson to allegedly assault her.

 

[hawkfan340]

Re: Lawyers, why didn't the State charge Everson with both 2nd and 3rd degree sex. as

Satterfield was charged twice because he is accused of two separate acts...having sex without consent, and helping someone else have sex without consent.

Everson was not involved in the alleged rape by Satterfield that resulted in his 3rd degree charge.

the 2nd degree charges are relating to them working together to allow Everson to allegedly assault her.

Okay, so are you saying Satterfield was being charged with two seperate illegal acts (i.e. he could be found guilty twice, of both 2nd and 3rd degree)?

That's fine, but couldn't they also charge Everson with committing one illegal act but try to get one conviction of the highest possible charge (i.e. they go to trial and get one conviction for the whatever is higher depending on the jury's opinion based on the trial)?

This is what I was meaning about my experience being on a jury in DSM.

 

[imported_ankle23]

Re: Lawyers, why didn't the State charge Everson with both 2nd and 3rd degree sex. as

My understanding is that the only difference between the two is that with 2nd degree Everson would have had to be aided and abetted by Satterfield. It now looks as if Everson could get off free since Satterfield testified that he didn't know what was happening in the bed, therefore he wasn't aiding and abetting. If they had charged him with 3rd degree as well, then they could still have gotten him. They can still reduce the charges, but both sides would have to agree.

I was on a jury in Polk county where a man was charged with a range of degrees of sexual assault. I believe the judge instructed us to consider the highest charge first, and if we couldn't convict, then go to the next one and so on. Therefore I don't think this could be a double jeopardy situation.

What's the deal? Was it a gamble by the State that could now blow up in there faces?

Everson is accused of one crime. can't charge him with both, it has to be either, or. The accuser claims she was asleep or passed out while everson had sex with her. in order to convict 2nd degree assault, it must be proven that he had sex with her against her will, or while she was incapacitated, and that he was aided by Satterfield. The 3rd degree charge does not involve aiding by Satterfield.

I'm not an attorney, so the above is just the way I understand things. The plaintiff's case was based on the criteria of 2nd degree. If 3rd degree, stories would have to change, I suppose.

 

[hawkfan340]

Re: Lawyers, why didn't the State charge Everson with both 2nd and 3rd degree sex. as

Everson is accused of one crime. can't charge him with both, it has to be either, or. The accuser claims she was asleep or passed out while everson had sex with her. in order to convict 2nd degree assault, it must be proven that he had sex with her against her will, or while she was incapacitated, and that he was aided by Satterfield. The 3rd degree charge does not involve aiding by Satterfield.

I'm not an attorney, so the above is just the way I understand things. The plaintiff's case was based on the criteria of 2nd degree. If 3rd degree, stories would have to change, I suppose.

My understanding is that although they are pursuing one conviction, they can try the case for both degrees and get whatever they get. That's the way I understood it from my jury duty. Not a lawyer either, so I don't know.

Perhaps it would have been clearer if I would have asked why they didn't try him for both degrees.

 

[hawkfan340]

Re: Lawyers, why didn't the State charge Everson with both 2nd and 3rd degree sex. as

Bumping this. Where are you law guys? OK4P? TH? What's up with this?

 

[okeefe4prez]

Re: Lawyers, why didn't the State charge Everson with both 2nd and 3rd degree sex. as

I don't know about Iowa criminal trials and jury instructions, but in many states lesser included charges are automatically included without having to charge someone with the kitchen sink list of crimes. E.g., if someone is charged with first degree murder, the jury can convict them of second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter. No idea how they roll in Iowa, though. Ask TH, don't ask me, I'm just a paper pusher.

 

[IAHawkFan]

Re: Lawyers, why didn't the State charge Everson with both 2nd and 3rd degree sex. as

3rd degree sexual abuse is not really a lesser charge to 2nd degree in Iowa. There are different qualification standards, and from what I understand, this case doesn't meet the standards for 3rd degree.

Sexual Offenses Iowa Law - Prevent Child Abuse Iowa

You can find the info at that link. Basically, to qualify for 3rd degree, the person has to be mentally or physically incapacitated, or under the effects of a controlled substance that would prevent her from consenting. She was drunk, but I'm guessing that alcohol doesn't qualify.

The used 2nd degree (class "B" felony) indicating that Satterfield aided in the crime. Since she is not under 12 years old and there is no indication that Everson used a weapon, they have to prove Everson was helped by another person to get this convicted.

Otherwise, I think the next lesser qualifying charge is assault with intent to commit sexual abuse, which runs from a class "C" felony down to an aggravated misdemeanor depending on what injuries she suffered...

 

[SCHawkeye]

Re: Lawyers, why didn't the State charge Everson with both 2nd and 3rd degree sex. as

3rd degree is a lesser included charge. If he is convicted of 2nd degree, the 3rd degree charge goes away (it's considered already rolled into the 2nd degree charge); however, if the State doesn't have enough to get him on 2nd degree, they can still convict him under 3rd degree because it is a lesser included charge in the original indictment.

Think murder and voluntary manslaughter - VM would be the lesser included charge in that case.