Opinion
18-P-1265
03-10-2020
COMMONWEALTH v. Anthony BEASLEY.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
Following a jury trial in the Superior Court, the defendant, Anthony Beasley, was convicted of two counts of assault with intent to rape a child. He appeals, contending that the evidence was insufficient. We affirm.
The defendant was indicted on two counts of aggravated statutory rape of a child. The judge allowed the Commonwealth's motion to amend the indictments to assault with intent to rape a child under age sixteen.
Background. The jury could have found the following facts. In 2005, the defendant, who was the boyfriend of the victim's grandmother, became the victim's primary caretaker when she was two years of age. Over the course of several years, the defendant assaulted the victim beginning when she was between five and eight years of age. The abuse ended in 2011 when the victim moved out of the defendant's apartment and back into her mother's home. The victim then disclosed the abuse to her mother.
At the time of the trial, the victim was thirteen years of age. She described a pattern of abuse by the defendant, whom she called and considered her "grandpa." Prior to the actual abuse, the defendant would glare at the victim and ask her to twirl around when she was wearing a dress. Then, when the two were alone, the defendant's behavior escalated. When the victim wanted something, the defendant instructed her to lie down on the couch and face away from him. The defendant then told the victim to pull her pants down, and he lay down on the couch behind her. The defendant then placed his penis between the victim's buttocks. Only after he completed this act would the victim be "rewarded" with what she had requested. Following the assaults, the defendant directed the victim not to tell anyone.
Sufficiency of the evidence. The defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient because his actions never created fear, suspicion or uneasiness in the victim, and there was no evidence of threats or words to prove that the defendant had the specific intent to rape.
The defendant concedes that the evidence was sufficient to prove the lesser included offense of indecent assault and battery on a child under age fourteen.
We review a sufficiency of the evidence claim to determine "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt" (emphasis omitted). Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979). In so doing, we may rely on inferences drawn from the evidence. They "need only be reasonable and possible." Commonwealth v. Powell, 459 Mass. 572, 579 (2011), quoting Commonwealth v. Beckett, 373 Mass. 329, 341 (1977).
To prove assault with intent to rape, the Commonwealth must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant assaulted the victim, and had a specific intent to rape the victim. Commonwealth v. Berendson, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 395, 397 (2008). Intent is a question of fact. The Commonwealth may prove specific intent through circumstantial evidence. See id. at 397. See also Commonwealth v. Wallace, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 411, 418 (2010) ("events must be viewed in light of the history of [the defendant's and victim's] relationship and the defendant's predatory behavior"). Moreover, specific intent is a "conscious act with the determination of the mind to do an act. It is contemplation rather than reflection and it must precede the act." Commonwealth v. Nickerson, 388 Mass. 246, 253-254 (1983).
Penetration is not an element of this crime. Commonwealth v. Westbrook, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 692, 700 (2003).
Here, the defendant was the victim's caretaker and the assaults occurred when the victim was quite young. See Commonwealth v. Wilbur W., 479 Mass. 397, 398 (2018) (child under age sixteen cannot consent to sexual activity). The defendant groomed the victim and waited for opportunities to isolate her. He used the things that the victim asked for as an inducement. The defendant positioned his victim on the couch in a vulnerable way by insisting that she face away from him with him directly behind her while he placed his penis between her buttocks while her pants were down. See Commonwealth v. Nickerson, 388 Mass. at 252-253 (repositioning clothing to expose "virtually naked" torso supports specific intent to rape). And, when the assault was over, the defendant directed the victim not to tell anyone. She complied in part because she "thought that it was a normal thing" because it happened so often, and in part because she feared she "would get in trouble." Compare Commonwealth v. Newcomb, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 519, 521, 524 (2011) (proof that rape was by constructive force and against will of victim "may be ‘by threatening words or gestures [that] operate[ ] on the mind’ to instill fear in the victim in order for the defendant to achieve his goal" [citation omitted] ).
Proof of force is not required. Commonwealth v. Moniz, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 532, 536 (2015).
--------
In sum, the jury could have found that the defendant engaged in grooming and escalating sexualized behaviors -- deliberately isolating the victim, who was not of age to consent, putting her in a compromising and vulnerable position, inducing her with rewards for compliance with his orders such as to undress, placing his penis between her buttocks, and warning her to not report the abuse -- all of which supported an inference of specific intent to rape.
Judgments affirmed.