Current Events > Kansas man accused of sexual assault cites state abortion law in his defense

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/11/28/us/ap-us-rape-conception-argument-kansas.html

A man accused of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl unsuccessfully argued that he should not be charged with taking advantage of a child because she was actually 16 under a Kansas law that says life begins at fertilization.

Defense attorney Cooper Overstreet argued in a motion that Jordan Ross, 21, of Topeka, could not be convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child because, under the state's definition of life, the alleged victim would be 16, rather than 15. The age of consent in Kansas is 16.

"Because of recent statutory amendments establishing that life begins at fertilization, the alleged victim in this case should be considered by this court as nine months older than her date of birth," according to Overstreet's motion. "Because of this, at the time of the alleged incident, the alleged victim would have been 16 years old and thus a charge of aggravated indecent liberties is factually impossible."

Douglas County District Court Judge James McCabria rejected Overstreet's motion, The Lawrence Journal-World reported .

In arguing against Overstreet's motion, Prosecutor Alice Walker cited a Kansas Court of Appeals opinion that said the state's law defining life as beginning at conception applied to public health codes, not to criminal codes. Age is calculated by birth date, and redefining that to equate with "life beginning at conception" would "introduce an unacceptable uncertainty into the criminal law," according to the opinion.

"Courts must construe statutes to avoid unreasonable or absurd results," the appeals judges wrote.

Ross was scheduled to go to trial Monday but McCabria delayed the trial after Overstreet said he needed time to change his defense plan.

Ross was charged a year ago with raping the girl at a Lawrence party in August 2017, when Ross was 19 and the girl was 15. Overstreet had planned to argue the sex was consensual.

Recently, prosecutors added the alternative charge of aggravated indecent liberties with a child, which does not consider consent as a factor. The state needs to prove only that the victim was 14 or 15 when the sex occurred and that the defendant acted "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly," Walker said in a court filing.

When the judge allowed the charge to be added, Overstreet filed the "life begins at fertilization" motion.

Stacey Donovan, the chief public defender in Shawnee County District Court and an adjunct professor at the University of Kansas School of Law, said she's had sex crime defendants ask her to try the "conception" argument but she never did.

A hearing to set Ross' new trial date is scheduled for Jan. 3. He remains free on $20,000 bond.

---

I'll give his lawyer credit for that creative attempt. It's fascinating to see what some lawyers try when faced with defending someone who is clearly guilty.
---

He should have gotten off. This is the can of worms your dumbass opens when you do something stupid like codify "life begins at fetilization" into law.

That's interesting and clever that they thought of that.

>Ross, 21
>A year ago, august 2017 when ross was 19

wha
---

Doesn't matter it's still illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor in Kansas, even if said minor is over the age of consent.
---

Unknown5uspect posted...

He should have gotten off. This is the can of worms your dumbass opens when you do something stupid like codify "life begins at fetilization" into law.

Truth
---

Ulyanyx posted...

>Ross, 21
>A year ago, august 2017 when ross was 19

wha

His birthday is between August and now. He turned 20, say, last September, and 21 this September.
---

"Thank you your honor, now.....look, just bear with me for a sec...."
---

It's a clever argument, but your age is determined by a certificate of live birth. I don't see Kansas issuing conception certificates.
---

This sounds like an argument someone on CE would come up with
---

Speech 100
---

Zikten posted...

That's interesting and clever that they thought of that.

It's not nearly as clever when the legislation in question outright says:

On and after July 1, 2013, the laws of this state shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development, all the rights, privileges and immunities available to other persons, citizens and residents of this state, subject only to the constitution of the United States, and decisional interpretations thereof by the United States supreme court and specific provisions to the contrary in the Kansas constitution and the Kansas Statutes Annotated.

Which admittedly doesn't go as far as to say that that's where we start keeping track of these things, but still a can of worms.

Were_Wyrm posted...

Doesn't matter it's still illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor in Kansas, even if said minor is over the age of consent.

No it's not. (And even if it were, double jeopardy laws would likely prevent it from being tried twice if it were a successful argument.)
---

Given how literary lawyers and judges take law in America, including but not limited to the Constitution, I wouldn't be surprised if this actually worked. So there we go.
---

These people only think of these laws in the context of punishing women. Hence why they don't even consider stuff like this or how child benefits if any should logically be paid to pregnant women if applied properly
---

I want the guy to win because it'll show how dumb life at conception really is.
---

This is terrible, but I admit I laughed reading the attorney's reasoning. The state was asking for a defence like this with their stupid law.
---

That's what happens when you push a stupid life-at-conception law.
---