Counsel for the accused hit on a consensual sexual encounter, while the Crown believes she has proven the consent was not there at the point the sex was taking place.
That’s how it was playing out in court this week in a Stephenville case with this being the second of three trials on sexual assault allegations against the Stephenville teenager who was a student at Stephenville High School, which all three of his alleged victims also attended.
The teen was acquitted of the charges in the first court case against him.
In his summation on Tuesday Mark Mills, counsel for the accused, said his theory of defense is that this was a sexual encounter that progressed but was not planned, that the complainant was determined she would continue.
He said the testimony from witnesses, including a doctor and a police officer was that any marks on her were not consistent with non-consent and that there was nothing on her throat or neck to indicate choking had taken place as alleged by the complainant.
Mills said there were inconsistencies in her testimony and that she had a tendency to minimize her role in the sexual encounter. He said she reached out to the accused and there was no evidence of reluctance.
Crown Attorney Susan Gallant said in court Thursday the consent was not present and she said the elements of a sexual assault have been met.
Using several case files she referred to reasonable steps and told Judge Lynn E. Cole that there were no reasonable steps taking place in this instance.
Gallant said from another case file, once a complainant has made a statement of unwillingness then the accused must not move forward.
She said in this instance it’s clear that it started out as consenting but changed during the actual act.
“When the complainant said “no, don’t put it in” that changed everything if you (judge) accept that the statement was made,” Gallant said.
She said the declaration was made by the complainant and after that the accused moved forward and the sexual assault took place without her consent.
Just as counsel accused the complainant of having inconsistences in her testimony, Gallant suggested there were inconsistencies in the accused’s testimony.
She said the inconsistencies may seem minor, but how the accused presented the evidence is what should concern the court.
The judge’s decision will be made at a later date.