State v. Jimenez

Under State v. Magel, the test for cases involving a threat takes into account whether the defendant expressed an intent to harm the victim, and whether that expression could compel the victim to engage in sexual contact.

Defendant appealed his first-degree rape conviction, assigning error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. The defendant accused the victim of cheating on him, and subsequently assaulted her. Later, the defendant returned to the victim’s house and requested to have intercourse with her. She assented and stated at trial that she did not feel forced into intercourse. The trial court refused to grant the defendant’s judgment of acquittal for first-degree rape. Following affirmation by this Court, the Oregon Supreme Court remanded the case based on State v. Marshall, which examined forcible compulsion. However, the state in Jimenez focused on the threat of forcible compulsion. Under State v. Magel, the test for cases involving a threat takes into account whether the defendant expressed an intent to harm the victim and whether that expression could compel the victim to engage in sexual contact. Accordingly, the fact the defendant had severely harmed the victim in the past and during the day in question would enable a rational jury to determine that the defendant expressed an intent to harm the victim, which caused her to submit to the sexual contact. Affirmed.