Opinion
Court of Appeals No. A-10402.
February 23, 2011.
Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Dillingham, Fred Torrisi, Judge, Trial Court No. 3DI-07-072 Cr.
Dan S. Bair, Assistant Public Advocate, and Rachel Levitt, Public Advocate, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Tamara E. de Lucia, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Special Prosecutions and Appeals, Anchorage, and Daniel S. Sullivan, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Coats, Chief Judge, and Mannheimer and Bolger, Judges.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
William R. Petla appeals his conviction for first-degree sexual assault. He argues that the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to support his conviction.
The State presented evidence that Petla disrobed a sleeping woman, climbed on top of her, and began engaging in sexual intercourse with her. When the woman awoke, she told Petla to desist, but Petla did not. The woman then had to push Petla's body off of her own.
To prove that Petla committed the offense of first-degree sexual assault, the State had to establish that Petla engaged in sexual penetration "without consent" of the woman. The term "without consent" is defined in AS 11.41.470(8). For purposes of resolving Petla's appeal, the relevant portion of this statutory definition is that "without consent" means that the victim was "coerced by the use of force" — that is, coerced through "bodily impact, restraint, or confinement".
AS 11.41.410(a)(1).
See AS 11.81.900(b)(27) (defining the term "force").
When we evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury's verdict, we must view that evidence (and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence) in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict.
See, e.g., Hinson v. State, 199 P.3d 1166, 1170 (Alaska App. 2008).
Petla relies on the principle that the "force" required for sexual assault must consist of something more than the force that naturally accompanies the act of sexual penetration or sexual contact. But viewing the evidence in Petla's case in the light most favorable to the jury's decision, Petla used the weight of his body to hold the woman down and continue his act of sexual penetration after she regained consciousness and told him to stop. Petla's conduct thus constituted the "bodily impact" or "restraint" necessary to establish that the continued sexual penetration was "coerced by the use of force".
The judgement of the superior court is AFFIRMED.