Worse than that - IIRC there was a case in Toronto many years ago, where one of the perps was celebrating his 18th birthday. They assualted or killed someone. (I forget the situation) the upshot was, the one fellow was covered by the Young Offenders Act until midnight on his 18th birthday, and what would have been many years in jail turned out to be a maximum 3-year sentence and sealed record.
The OP’s point is correct, there’s not much difference between a few days before 18 and a few days after - but the line is drawn somewhere. It’s clear, simple, and everyone knows you are not supposed to cross it. It’s a lot simpler than “if the guy/girl looks childish enough to make it creepy, or looks mature enough that it’s ok”. That would not fly as a law - too vague.
As a practical matter, the consequences of getting caught three days before the boy’s 18th birthday may be less severe if this was their first sexual encounter, and more harsh if the relationship actually began when the boy was much younger. The facts driving the prosecution may not all be fully public at this point.
So let’s imagine Benjamin and Mrs. Robinson are caught by police kissing in a car. They are separated, questioned, and Ben says he’s been having sex with her for months. He testifies to such in front of the grand jury. On the basis of that tesmony, Mrs. Robinson is indicted and arrested.
At her trial, Benjamin recants his story. He says they kissed but never had sex.
Ben’s original statement to the police can be used against him, and it’s not hearsay. (Hearsay is a statement made outside the courtroom, and offered as evidence in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement). In this case, federal rule 801(d)(1)(A) (and its state twins) provide that a prior inconsistent statement (if given under oath) is not hearsay, because it’s being offered to impeach the witness, rather than for the truth.
Suppose Ben never testified in front of the grand jury? Let’s say he just told the cops about having sex, but then shut up and refused to even testify in front of the grand jury.
The cop who took his statement could testify in front of the grand jury and relay Ben’s statement – hearsay in grand jury testimony is permissible.
Yes but…
The police hearsay might be used in a Grand Jury you say, and that would give an indictment. But then there’s a trial…
If it then comes to trial and Ben denies anything happened, (or takes the 5th in the mistaken belief he is guilty of conspiracy to commit statutory rape) can his statement be used in court and what credence can it be given? The policeman’s testimony is still hearsay.
If Ben says one thing to police and another on the stand, he can’t be convicted of perjury unless both versions were under oath - or there’s corroborating evidence like another witness, DNA evidence, etc.?
I suppose they could charge Ben for obstruction of justice for the contradiction (lying to the investigator) or maybe public mischief; but if the whole premise of their case, right up to charging Mrs. Robinson, was that the initial statement was the truth, then it would be an interesting reversal to now claim it was a lie.
Of course, they would have to prove their case that it was obstruction, which would involve putting Mrs. Robinson (now acquitted) on the stand where she takes the 5th (presumably or else must admit to other episodes). They can’t make Ben testify against himself.
I assume this is what a DA would call a no-win situation?
“You can’t convict me of obstruction because I could have been telling the truth and am only guilty of perjury, which you also cannot prove…” Sounds like reasonable doubt to me.
He could also claim the interrogator threatened him and he was scared and that’s why he admitted to false allegations, break down on the stand crying, and play on the jury’s sympathy.
The teacher is being charged. This evening, we’re attending a meeting at the school, where I expect the principal will be announcing that she will not be back in the fall.
The teacher had been leading the school’s much-respected chamber choir for the past eight years. My daughter is scheduled to sing in the choir for her second year. We had also been expecting that she was in line to be appointed soprano section leader. Since we don’t know who will be leading the choirs, or in fact whether the choir programs will be continuing (which is what I’ll be attending the meeting to determine), those plans are potentially tossed into the proverbial cocked hat.
So her plans are being affected, not by the questionable sex, per se, but by the impending loss of the teacher.
ETA: she’s asking (or rather, saying) “If only they hadn’t been caught until after he turned 18, I might be able to count on having the same choir teacher for two more years.” I’m wondering if she’s even correct about that.
For the purposes of the hypothetical (when it was still a hypothetical), let’s say the officers saw the young men’s hands inside the respective teachers’ shirts.
In the actual occurrence, I don’t have any knowledge of what the arresting officer saw, or of what questions he posed to them that elicited the information of “We’ve been sexing each other up since November.”
If the guy had been 18, possibly the cop would have dug no further. “Hey you two, move on, you can’t park here”.
If they were visibly involved in behaviour that flashed unnecessary body parts in plain view, then charges might have been forthcoming.
Even if he had found out she was a teacher, would anything have come of it? Depends whether the cop wanted to cause trouble. I’m not sure he could haul the boy into the station with no evidence of an actual crime, let alone the teacher. If the statute stops applying the day after school is out, there’s no problem - other than, if the police report the episode to the school board. In this day of witch-hunts on this topic, that probably would have made her career take a nose dive simply on the innuendo of the situation that came a bit too close to actually being unethical or illegal.
If she had merely been charged with lewd behaviour in public becasue of body parts visible - I assume too in this day of witch-hunts there is an automatic mechanism to pass on the information about this charge to a teacher’s employers. (Which implies that a teacher who goes to New Orleans for Mardi Gras and gets a bit too carried away could also risk losing her career?)
Even if there was no proof that any sex happened prior to 18 I’m sure it was against school policy and would lead to dismissal. I know a child doesn’t see it this way but I would rather have a shitty choir than have one run by a teacher who fucks her students. Kind of the reason why the law is like that. Many children are unable to look at the the world maturely.
In my state penetration = sexual assault. Groping of various types = criminal sexual contact.
No automatic mechanism that I know of. Most of the time that teachers get in trouble for off duty activities its because of their own Facebook account not the police.
Actually, Nancy Grace a little while ago was going on and on (as only she can) about a similar case. The teacher (40+, IIRC) and student had been socializing and texting (OMG!) since she was 15, and at age 18, when out of school, she moved in with him. Nancy went all Casey Anthony on the situation, continually referring to the guy as a perv and the girl as a “child”. But both denied any inappropriate action before age 18, so it had no consequences. As things should be. the only really upset people seemed to be the mother and Nancy.
Ms. Grace seemed to be implying that even at age 18 the girl (woman) could not be relied upon to make serious decisions… but there’s an example where the line being drawn at 18 worked just fine the other way.
I don’t recall if the episode had repercussions on the guy’s career, but I would not be surprised if it did.
Ben’s prior statement to police, not given under oath, can be introduced against him if he testifies contrary to what he said. This is also not hearsay, since the purpose of the statement is (supposedly) to impeach the credibility of the witness. You’re not offering the prior statement to show what was in it was true: you’re offering it to show that he lied, and thus is presumably not trustworthy now. (This rule is extant in federal court and in my state, Virginia, but there may be other states where a prior inconsistent statement is admissible for its substantive value as well as for impeachment).
But now we have another problem. Again this is an area where state law differs, but in general, you cannot impeach your own witness in bad faith – that is, you can’t call a witness to the stand, elicit testimony contrary to what you want, and then accuse the witness of lying. However, if the witness “proves adverse” that is, if the witness gets on the standard and unexpectedly begins sabotaging your case, you can then treat the witness as hostile, lead, and impeach. Luckily for the prosecution, you are allowed to call and impeach a witness with an “adverse interest.”
So for our case, if the prosecution knew ahead of time that Ben had recanted, and knew that if called, Ben was planning to testify that no sex went on (contrary to his police interview), he would most probably be considered a witness with an adverse interest. If the prosecution didn’t know, then once Ben changed his story on the stand, he would have “proved adverse,” and in either case, they could then impeach his credibility with the prior inconsistent statement, but the jury would be instructed that the statement was being offered only to prove Ben lied, not to prove that the couple really did have sex.
Why is this important? Because that can’t be the only evidence that they had sex. If the prosecution’s only evidence was Ben’s statement, remember it’s not in evidence for the truth. So no reasonable jury could return a conviction just based on that.
That is NOT hearsay. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In this case the reason it’s being offered is to impeach the witness’s credibility, that is, it is not being offered to prove the truth of what the statement actually is, just that the witness said something different previously.
ETA: the point is, it doesn’t qualify as hearsay in the first place - therefore it does not need to be admitted under a hearsay exception (as you describe it: an “allowed use of hearsay”).
One of my old teachers left his wife for a 16 year old girl who dropped out of my old school in order to date him (she also dumped his son, who she had been dating, for him). Supposedly no crime was committed there, and he’s actually still teaching at my old school.
How is that possible that the person who cheated her wife just for a 16th year old girl isn’t that a cheat?
and what does mean by cheat?
We had a similar case in a town I was living in 10 years ago. A police officer in town had a just barely legal pregnant girlfriend and it was clear she had become pregnant right around her 18th birthday. He was charged with statutory rape and the case came down to exactly what day she became pregnant and which side of the border they had sex on since the girlfriend lived 5 miles away across the state line where the Age of Consent was 16.
The whole damn thing sounded like some law school hypothetical. If she became pregnant the day before her birthday or at his house he goes to jail for 20 years. If she became pregnant on her birthday or at her parent’s house he’s still a police officer (with, if I remember correctly, a promotion pending waiting on the result of the trial).
In the end the court decided there was no way to absolutely prove the exact date she had gotten pregnant, so he was found not guilty and as far as I know still works as an LEO in that town.
6 months at least. Didn’t get caught until three days before. And it’s not like she tripped and fell on a penis. All teachers are aware of the law. She made a choice to break it.
