Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 32483 STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ALEXANDER ROBERT JOSLIN, Defendant-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Boise, December 2007 Term 2007 Opinion No. 136 Filed: December 24, 2007 Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District of the State of Idaho, in and for Bingham County. The Hon. James C. Herndon, District Judge. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, argued. Andrew H. Parnes, Ketchum, and Scott E. Axline, Blackfoot, for appellant.

EISMANN, Chief Justice. This is an appeal from a conviction for statutory rape. The Defendant challenges the district court's denial of the jury's request to define the term "vaginal opening," the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, the court's exclusion of evidence regarding the victim's prior alleged sexual conduct, the court's refusal to permit the Defendant's expert to testify about the effects of alcohol on the memory and motivations to lie, and the court's rejection of the Defendant's arguments that he was denied the equal protection of the law and subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm the judgment of the district court.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY During a party at a friend's house on December 26, 2002, nineteen-year-old Alexander Joslin (Defendant) met and ultimately had sexual intercourse with a sixteen-year-old girl. He was charged with rape committed in one of three ways: by having vaginal intercourse with a

female under the age of eighteen, by having vaginal intercourse with a female whose resistance he overcame with force, or by having vaginal intercourse with a female who was unable to resist due to intoxication. The jury found the Defendant guilty of having vaginal intercourse with a female under age eighteen (statutory rape) and not guilty of the other two counts. He appeals, contending that the district court committed various errors during the trial and that the statutes defining the crime and fixing the punishment are unconstitutional.

II. ISSUES ON APPEAL 1. Did the district court err in failing to define the term "vaginal opening" in response to a request from the jury? 2. 3. 4. Was there sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict? Did the district court err in excluding evidence of the victim's prior sexual conduct? Did the district court err in excluding testimony of the Defendant's expert witness regarding the effects of alcohol on memory? 5. Did the district court err in excluding testimony of the Defendant's expert witness offered to challenge the constitutionality of Idaho Code

Download joslin1224.pdf

Idaho Law