ROBINSON V. COM.
CRIMINAL: Crime – rape: underage, and marriage
2005-CA-002104
PUBLISHED: AFFIRMING IN PART, VACATING IN PART, AND REMANDING
PANEL: THOMPSON PRESIDING; WINE CONCURS; HENRY DISSENTING WITH SEPARATE OPINION
COUNTY: LINCOLN
DATE RENDERED: 8/31/2007
CA reluctantly reversed Robinson’s convictions and sentence for three counts of complicity to commit third-degree rape and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion in Robinson v. Commonwealth, 212 S.W.3d 100 (Ky. 2006). CA affirmed her convictions and sentence for complicity to commit second-degree rape.
CA held it was bound by SC decision in co-defendant’s case and must recognize the marriage between Robinson and S.H. as valid. SC reversed the principal’s convictions on the basis that no offense was committed after the marriage, finding that the TC erred when it denied the request for an instruction under KRS 510.035. That statute provides:
A person who engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse with another person to whom the person is married, or subjects another person to whom the person is married to sexual contact, does not commit an offense under this chapter regardless of the person’s age solely because the other person is less than sixteen (16) years old or mentally retarded.
The commission of an underlying offense by another person is clearly an element of complicity. KRS 502.020. Because the Supreme Court has reversed Robinson’s conviction for any sexual offenses based on S.H.’s age that occurred after the marriage, appellant’s convictions must likewise be reversed. Therefore, CA reversed appellant’s convictions for three counts of complicity to commit third-degree rape which occurred after the marriage.
Note: rule of thumb – If you plan on pimping your underage daughter to your boyfriend, make sure they are married first before having sexual relations.
Digested by Scott C. Byrd – Olgin and Byrd
www.olginandbyrd.com
