Legal analysis of the Owen Laurie rape case

[LinusK]

Yesterday, Owen Labrie, who had been charged with 9 crimes, was convicted of 5, and acquitted of of four. The charges originated because of a sexual encounter between Owen (then 18) and a then 15 year old girl.

The convictions were for:

1.) Three counts of misdemeanor sexual assault.

In New Hampshire, it is illegal to have sex with a person between the ages of 13 and 15. If the age difference is less than 4 years, it’s a misdemeanor. If it’s more than 4 years, it’s a felony. (Legally, it is a crime for two 15 year olds to have sex, and they could both be convicted. Though it’s possible, I doubt NH prosecutors prosecute those cases very often.) Consent is irrelevant.

Statute:

632-A:4 Sexual Assault. –
I. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor under any of the following circumstances:
…
(c) In the absence of any of the circumstances set forth in RSA 632-A:2, when the actor engages in sexual penetration with a person, other than the actor’s legal spouse, who is 13 years of age or older and under 16 years of age where the age difference between the actor and the other person is 4 years or less.

The three counts were for cunnilingus, inserting his finger, and for intercourse. Again, consent is irrelevant.

2.) Endangering the Welfare of a Child

The only section of NH’s Endangerment law that appears to apply is the following one:

639:3 Endangering Welfare of Child or Incompetent. –
I. A person is guilty of endangering the welfare of a child or incompetent if he knowingly endangers the welfare of a child under 18 years of age or of an incompetent person by purposely violating a duty of care, protection or support he owes to such child or incompetent, or by inducing such child or incompetent to engage in conduct that endangers his health or safety.

This section is sort of poorly written, because it’s not clear whether “such [a] child” refers to a child the defendant owes a "duty of care, protection or support”; or whether “such [a] child merely refers to a person 17 or younger.

If the jury interpreted it to mean 17 or younger, it means they decided what he did with her endangered her welfare.

There are two felony version of endangerment, but one involves felony sexual assault, for which he was acquitted, and the other involves child pornography, for which he was was never charges.

3.) Prohibited use of a computer.

In New Hampshire, it’s illegal to "seduce, solicit, lure, or entice” a child to do any of three things: (a) engage in aggravated sexual assault; (b) commit indecent exposure; or (c) commit endangerment of a child. However, (a) refers to felony sexual assault (which Owen was acquitted of) and (c) refers to child pornography (for which he was never charged). That leaves (b): Indecent exposure and lewdness.

649-B:4 Certain Uses of Computer Services Prohibited. –
I. No person shall knowingly utilize a computer on-line service, internet service, or local bulletin board service to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a child or another person believed by the person to be a child, to commit any of the following:
(a) Any offense under RSA 632-A, relative to sexual assault and related offenses.
(b) Indecent exposure and lewdness under RSA 645:1.
(c) Endangering a child as defined in RSA 639:3, III.
II. (a) A person who violates the provisions of paragraph I shall be guilty of a class A felony if such person believed the child was under the age of 13, otherwise such person shall be guilty of a class B felony.

Indecent exposure and lewdness involves sexual contact with a person who is less than 16.

645:1 Indecent Exposure and Lewdness. –
I. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if such person fornicates, exposes his or her genitals, or performs any other act of gross lewdness under circumstances which he or she should know will likely cause affront or alarm.
II. A person is guilty of a class B felony if:
(a) Such person purposely performs any act of sexual penetration or sexual contact on himself or herself or another in the presence of a child who is less than 16 years of age.

Interestingly, the law as written makes it a felony for two 15 year olds to have “sexual contact" with each other, and makes it a class B felony. And while I doubt prosecutors often prosecute such cases, the law explicitly makes such conduct illegal. It is a classic example of legislation that was written with (I assume) good intentions, but is so poorly drafted it makes 15 year-old kids felons for making out.

Owen was acquitted of 4 crimes.

1.) He was acquitted of 3 counts of felony sexual assault.

The difference between felony sexual assault and misdemeanor sexual assault, in NH, is consent.

Had the jury found that Owen had “overcome” the victim, applied “physical force or violence,” “coerced” her, “threatened” her, “kidnapped” her, or “administered an intoxicating substance” without her knowledge, or that she’d been “unable to resist," they would have found him guilty of the three felony charges

2.) He was also acquitted of misdemeanor assault. Prosecutors had said Oven had bitten the girl’s chest. The jury found him not guilty of that.

In summary, the jury found that the couple had consensual sex, and convicted Owen for that.

Strangely, the reason he’s still facing a felony sentence is that at some point he contacted her over the internet. It’s also why he’ll have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

[Morgenstern]

Fair enough. Anyway you look at it, he’s a rapist. (statutory).
He’s got a long life to live with that on his record.

[LinusK]

True. But strictly speaking it’s not statutory rate in the way normally think of it: he wasn’t convicted for being too old. Had he been 15, instead of 18, it would have been the same crime. Well, except they both would have been equally guilty, in that case.

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

@LinusK

Interestingly, the law as written makes it a felony for two 15 year olds to have “sexual contact" with each other, and makes it a class B felony. And while I doubt prosecutors often prosecute such cases, the law explicitly makes such conduct illegal. It is a classic example of legislation that was written with (I assume) good intentions, but is so poorly drafted it makes 15 year-old kids felons for making out.

Do you believe that this is a true statement?

The difference between felony sexual assault and misdemeanor sexual assault, in NH, is consent.

Or this one, for that matter?

[naita]

@LinusK

This section is sort of poorly written, because it’s not clear whether “such [a] child” refers to a child the defendant owes a "duty of care, protection or support”; or whether “such [a] child merely refers to a person 17 or younger.

What do you base that on? Your own reading in this particular case? Or is this a question you have studied for years and know differing jury interpretations of?

Because to me it reads clear as glass, with added line breaks to increase understandability:

639:3 Endangering Welfare of Child or Incompetent. –
I. A person is guilty of endangering the welfare of a child or incompetent if he knowingly endangers the welfare of a child under 18 years of age or of an incompetent person

by purposely violating a duty of care, protection or support he owes to such child or incompetent,

or by inducing such child or incompetent to engage in conduct that endangers his health or safety.

[billfish678]

I’m just a country bumpkin, but it seems to me that “duty of care” charge is getting charged for the same crime twice.

Kind of like “endangering” someone by pointing a gun at them. Because well, you know, you intended to shoot them (and you did and got charged for that).

Or am I missing something?

[clairobscur]

@Morgenstern

Fair enough. Anyway you look at it, he’s a rapist. (statutory).
He’s got a long life to live with that on his record.

You find it fair? Having a teen register for life as a sex offender beause he had sex with his gf?

And of top of it, if the OP is right, two underage teens having sex will be considered for life as a dangerous sex offender. It makes any sense to you?

[Tamerlane]

@clairobscur

You find it fair? Having a teen register for life as a sex offender beause he had sex with his gf?

We should be entirely clear that in this case it wasn’t his girlfriend but rather a casual acquaintance, she claimed pretty vociferously ( she was very emotional in court ) he raped her and was rough ( she had bruises on her chest ), but she froze up rather than fight him off. Now apparently there was enough doubt swirling around that he wasn’t convicted of the felony rape charges. But this was not two lovebirds caught canoodling, but rather an accusation of assault by one of the parties.

[Emiliana]

@clairobscur

You find it fair? Having a teen register for life as a sex offender beause he had sex with his gf?

And of top of it, if the OP is right, two underage teens having sex will be considered for life as a dangerous sex offender. It makes any sense to you?

Yeah, this was not the scenario at all. The general idea was that senior boys try to have sex with five girls–virgins?–before graduating. And the girls–so he claimed–think this is a real honor. The girl in question did not.

[LinusK]

@Jimmy_Chitwood

Do you believe that this is a true statement?

Or this one, for that matter?

Yes & yes. I quoted the relevant statutes, and looked them up, using a simple google search. You can do that too.

[LinusK]

@naita

What do you base that on? Your own reading in this particular case? Or is this a question you have studied for years and know differing jury interpretations of?

Because to me it reads clear as glass, with added line breaks to increase understandability:

I’m not quite sure what you’re asking, but if it’s what I think it is:

The reason I think they based their decision on the part of the statute that reads:

by inducing such child or incompetent to engage in conduct that endangers his health or safety.

rather than the part that says:

A person is guilty of endangering the welfare of a child or incompetent if he knowingly endangers the welfare of a child under 18 years of age or of an incompetent person by purposely violating a duty of care, protection or support he owes to such child or incompetent

is that I don’t thing he (or any student) a has a legal duty to care for, protect, or support another student, just because they go to the same school.

The duty to care for, protect or support someone usually comes from a parent-child relationship, or a duty you’ve voluntarily taken on - like caring for an elderly person in a nursing home.

[Merneith]

@LinusK

In summary, the jury found that the couple had consensual sex, and convicted Owen for that.

Strangely, the reason he’s still facing a felony sentence is that at some point he contacted her over the internet. It’s also why he’ll have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

Not quite. Here’s the NYT summary of the sentence:

Owen Labrie of St. Paul’s School Is Found Not Guilty of Main Rape Charge...

The nine men and three women rejected the more serious accusations of aggravated sexual assault, as well as a misdemeanor assault charge of biting the girl’s chest, but convicted Mr. Labrie of three misdemeanors related to the girl’s age and involving penetration with his penis, mouth and finger. He was also convicted of endangering the welfare of a child, a misdemeanor, and a felony charge involving use of a computer to lure a minor.

<snip>
Even without a conviction on the most serious charges, Mr. Labrie now faces up to seven years in prison on the conviction related to computer use, and a year on each of the misdemeanor convictions.

Prosecutors said Mr. Labrie would also have to register as a sex offender because of the computer-related charge, though legal experts said he could eventually petition for removal.

So he’s facing prison time for each of the four sex-related misdemeanors as well as the felony computer charge, although he wasn’t convicted of the more serious charges that would have gotten him a longer sentence.

Also, it’s possible that he will be able to get off the sex offender registry at some point, although I’m not sure when or what the process for that is.

[LinusK]

@billfish678

I’m just a country bumpkin, but it seems to me that “duty of care” charge is getting charged for the same crime twice.

Kind of like “endangering” someone by pointing a gun at them. Because well, you know, you intended to shoot them (and you did and got charged for that).

Or am I missing something?

I hear what you’re saying, but as a legal matter double jeopardy is a very complicated. I will say his convictions don’t appear to violate double jeopardy, but… it’s complicated.

If he appeals, his lawyers might include a double jeopardy argument, but even if they won, it would only get rid of one of the four misdemeanors. The real problem is the felony.

[LinusK]

@clairobscur

You find it fair? Having a teen register for life as a sex offender beause he had sex with his gf?

And of top of it, if the OP is right, two underage teens having sex will be considered for life as a dangerous sex offender. It makes any sense to you?

Not addressed to me, but… it seems stupid to me. I understand prosecutorial discretion, but relying on prosecutorial discretion when you’re writing a law is, imo, a mistake. Plenty of prosecutor fail to use their discretion. They get in the mindset of, “I’m going to win this, and I’m going to use all the tools available,” and discretion goes right out the window.

[LinusK]

@Tamerlane

We should be entirely clear that in this case it wasn’t his girlfriend but rather a casual acquaintance, she claimed pretty vociferously ( she was very emotional in court ) he raped her and was rough ( she had bruises on her chest ), but she froze up rather than fight him off. Now apparently there was enough doubt swirling around that he wasn’t convicted of the felony rape charges. But this was not two lovebirds caught canoodling, but rather an accusation of assault by one of the parties.

It was an accusation. Not all accusations are true. If they were, we wouldn’t need juries or a justice system.

They both testified. You - it seems - believe her testimony, but not his. That’s fine. You’re entitled to your opinion.

But the jury, who saw all the evidence, heard all the testimony, and was there to see it, didn’t believe her.

His lawyer said, and I’m paraphrasing here, that at some point she realized somebody’s reputation at the school was about to get shredded. She made the rational (though self-interested) decision it would be his reputation, and not hers.

[billfish678]

@LinusK

I hear what you’re saying, but as a legal matter double jeopardy is a very complicated. I will say his convictions don’t appear to violate double jeopardy, but… it’s complicated.

If he appeals, his lawyers might include a double jeopardy argument, but even if they won, it would only get rid of one of the four misdemeanors. The real problem is the felony.

But it’s really not double jeopardy either.

Seems to me its like saying “you had sex with a minor and that’s a bad thing” and “you purposely allowed something bad to happen to a minor because you had sex with them”.

Its the same thing.

[LinusK]

@Emiliana

Yeah, this was not the scenario at all. The general idea was that senior boys try to have sex with five girls–virgins?–before graduating. And the girls–so he claimed–think this is a real honor. The girl in question did not.

I don’t know exactly what the “senior salute” tradition means at St. Paul’s - and probably never will know, since I didn’t go there and never will. (And probably not all the students at St. Paul’s agree about what it is.) But the question is, to use your words, when did she decide it wasn’t an “honor”? Because if it was after they had sex, it wasn’t rape. Or rather, it wasn’t “felony sexual assault” under NH law. It was - as the jury decided - misdemeanor sexual assault. Because she was 15 (therefore under 16) at the time. In that case, consent is irrelevant. IOW, it doesn’t matter if she consented, because she was 15 at the time.

[Merneith]

@LinusK

But the jury, who saw all the evidence, heard all the testimony, and was there to see it, didn’t believe her.

Again - this is not quite accurate. The jury convicted him of multiple lesser charges. Labrie could face eight years or so in prison for the various convictions. Just like in any other trial, this doesn’t mean that the jury didn’t believe the plaintiff. It certainly doesn’t mean that the jury thought Labrie was innocent.

[LinusK]

@Merneith

Not quite. Here’s the NYT summary of the sentence:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/29/us/st-pauls-school-rape-trial-owen-labrie.html

So he’s facing prison time for each of the four sex-related misdemeanors as well as the felony computer charge, although he wasn’t convicted of the more serious charges that would have gotten him a longer sentence.

Also, it’s possible that he will be able to get off the sex offender registry at some point, although I’m not sure when or what the process for that is.

I’m not sure what part is incorrect. The only difference I see is “though legal experts said he could eventually petition for removal.” If there’s a process for removal from the sexual offender registry in NH (and I assume there is, since the NYT is usually pretty reliable), I don’t know anything about it.

You said he’s “facing prison time for each of the four sex-related misdemeanors.” That’s incorrect. Prison is for felonies, not misdemeanors.

[John_Mace]

@LinusK

I’m not sure what part is incorrect. The only difference I see is “though legal experts said he could eventually petition for removal.” If there’s a process for removal from the sexual offender registry in NH (and I assume there is, since the NYT is usually pretty reliable), I don’t know anything about it.

You said he’s “facing prison time for each of the four sex-related misdemeanors.” That’s incorrect. Prison is for felonies, not misdemeanors.

From the article:

Even without a conviction on the most serious charges, Mr. Labrie now faces up to seven years in prison on the conviction related to computer use [a felony], and a year on each of the misdemeanor convictions.