holding that when a defendant inflicts distinct types of sexual penetration upon a victim during a single episode of sexual assault, each distinct type of sexual penetration will support a separate count of sexual assault
How later courts described this case
- holding that when a defendant inflicts distinct types of sexual penetration upon a victim during a single episode of sexual assault, each distinct type of sexual penetration will support a separate count of sexual assault
- considering de novo the question of the scope of plain error review
- defendant’s restraint of victim ‘‘went significantly beyond that which was merely incidental to the sexual assault’’ where defendant pulled victim off of bike path, ‘‘dragged him to a secluded area several hundred feet away, and there held him captive for almost an hour’’
- "Virtually every case involving sexual abuse of a child is, in this respect, nonconsensual; because no case of child sexual abuse involves conduct that is truly consensual, it is difficult to conceive of a situation in which an act of sexual abuse on a child would not also be an act of sexual assault."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
COATS, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent from the court’s decision overruling Oswald v. State, 715 P.2d 276, 280 (Alaska App.1986). See, ante, at 995 n. 3.