Opinion

State v. Monk

  • 514 N.W.2d 448
  • 1994 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 71
  • 1994 WL 94086
Court
Supreme Court of Iowa
Filed
Mar 23, 1994
Status
Published
Author
Ternus
On the bench
Andreasen, Ternus, Carter, Snell, Neuman
Cited by
14 cases
Authority
More cited than 9.5%

“The holdings in State v. Pearson and State v. Monk have transformed our sex abuse statutes into general assault statutes where the 14 assault has some effect on the reproductive or excretory organs of the victim or defendant.”

How later courts described this case

  • “The holdings in State v. Pearson and State v. Monk have transformed our sex abuse statutes into general assault statutes where the 14 assault has some effect on the reproductive or excretory organs of the victim or defendant.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

TERNUS, Justice

(concurring specially).

I concur in the majority opinion but want to add to the discussion concerning Monk’s *452 request for judgment of acquittal. Monk strenuously argues that there is no evidence of “sexual contact” because his actions were a prank and not motivated by a desire to arouse or satisfy his sexual desires or those of the other participants. However, sexual motivation is not required in order to establish an offense of sexual abuse. State v. Pearson, 514 N.W.2d 452, 456 (Iowa 1994). Where the type of contact or other relevant circumstances show that the contact was sexual in nature, the lack of sexual motivation does not preclude a finding of “sexual contact.” Id.

In the present case, the jury could find that the contact between Monk and Howard was sexual in nature because of the type of contact that occurred. Arguably, Monk and his friends performed a simulated act of anal intercourse on Howard. Monk could have chased Howard with the broom, swatted at Howard with the broom, or playfully jabbed Howard in the abdomen with the broom. However, Monk chose to insert the broom handle in Howard’s rectum. A jury could find that he chose to touch Howard where he did to simulate anal intercourse. That finding by the jury would justify the jury’s conclusion that the contact was indeed sexual in nature. The fact that Monk was not sexually aroused by his actions is not dispositive of whether the contact itself was sexual.

NEUMAN, J., joins this special concurrence.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.