Senate Moves To Remove Marriage Exemption To Sexual Assault

Marriage would no longer be a defense in cases of sexual assault if a Senate Bill becomes law.

Senate Bill 190 removes the defense of marriage from the definition of sexual contact and removes marriage as a defense to first and third-degree sexual assault.

Sen. Ryan Weld, R-Brooke, explained the purpose of the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“As it stands now, an individual could not be found guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree, if they were in fact, married to the victim, is that correct,” Weld asked of counsel. “And so that’s the distinction that we’re here making today, potentially within Senate Bill 190, so that would be what is called the marital exception. So we would be removing that.”

Senate staff counsel confirmed what Weld said.

The prosecuting attorney for Monongalia County, Gabrielle Mucciola, testified before the committee. She said that the marital exemption is a barrier to prosecution in crimes involving a marriage.

“These cases are wildly underreported,” Mucciola said. “And I would say that this exemption creates just another hurdle for victims of sexual abuse and sexual assault to come forward and feel comfortable that West Virginia adequately protects them.”

Opponents of the bill voiced concerns about false reporting and “he said, she said” arguments. Sen. Patricia Rucker, R-Jefferson, spoke in opposition to the bill. 

“I wish that I could feel confidence in the checks and balances and judicial system that we have,” Rucker said. “But the reality is that in this day and age, there are many, many cases where individuals who are angry with each other, disappointed by each other, fighting and trying to take advantage of our system to try to hurt the other person because of whatever, angry, whatever has occurred. And they’re not always truthful.”

Weld spoke in favor of the bill, citing his trust in the justice system’s ability to try these crimes. 

“The decision before us right now, is whether we want to signify to the married people around this state, man or woman and to the rest of the nation for that matter, that it is a crime to sexually abuse your spouse. That is the question for us,” Weld said. “Are we going to allow for spouses to be sexually abused in the state? Or are we going to put a stop to that and find that there is no difference? Whether or not you sexually abuse your spouse, or whether you sexually abuse a stranger off the street?”

Sen. Jay Taylor, R-Taylor, apologetically supported the bill.

“I’m sorry to, you know, some have encouraged me to vote against this bill,” Taylor said. “But I just I have to vote yes, because I respect my wife, and it just does not make sense to me that this is in our laws. And I understand that the argument about well, it could get abused. Well, all of our laws get abused by so many different things.”

The bill passed by a roll call vote of 13 to 4 and was read on first reading on the Senate floor Friday.

Officials to Discuss Reducing Untested Rape Kit Backlog

Law enforcement officials are gathering in Huntington to discuss how to use grants to eliminate the backlog of untested sexual assault kits in West Virginia.

The meeting Friday at the Marshall University Forensic Science Center was arranged by U.S. Rep. Evan Jenkins, who will join via Skype from Washington, D.C.

Representatives of the Forensic Science Center, the West Virginia State Police, the Cabell County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and the Division of Justice and Commerce are scheduled to attend. Victim advocates also will participate.

The state recently received a nearly $1.2 million grant from the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Sexual Assault Kit Initiative.

Time Limit Sought for Proposed Delay in Rape Case Ruling

A Clarksburg man says the West Virginia Supreme Court should not indefinitely delay its ruling allowing him to withdraw guilty pleas in a 2001 rape case.

The state attorney general’s office last week asked the justices to put the ruling on hold while they consider appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. No time limit was mentioned.

Joseph Buffey’s attorneys say in court papers filed Tuesday that they don’t object to a delay as long as it doesn’t exceed 30 days.

Last month, the state justices ruled that Buffey’s due process rights were violated when prosecutors failed to disclose that DNA tests exonerated him in the rape and robbery of an 83-year-old woman. They sent the case back to a judge to allow Buffey to withdraw his guilty pleas.

W.Va. High Court to Reconsider Jail Rape Case

  

The West Virginia Supreme Court is reconsidering its ruling over a lawsuit alleging a male correctional officer repeatedly raped a female inmate.

The court on Tuesday decided it will modify a ruling that the West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Authority can’t be held liable.

After reviewing new information, the court wrote it will issue a modified opinion without further oral arguments. Advocates for social justice, civil liberties and other groups provided new comments.

Justices Menis Ketchum and Allen Loughry dissented.

In her lawsuit, the woman alleged the officer raped her 17 times while incarcerated at the Southern Regional Jail in 2009.

In March, the court ruled the authority has immunity because the woman didn’t provide evidence that the officer’s alleged actions occurred within the scope of his employment.

Court Says W.Va. Jail Agency Not Liable in Lawsuit

The West Virginia Supreme Court has dismissed the state Regional Jail Authority from a lawsuit that alleged a male correctional officer repeatedly raped a female inmate.
 
The court says the authority is entitled to immunity because the woman failed to provide any evidence that the officer’s alleged actions occurred within the scope of his employment.

The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the woman against the authority and the officer. The lawsuit alleged that the officer raped the woman 17 times while she was an inmate at the Southern Regional Jail in 2009.
 
The lawsuit claimed the authority was negligent in training, supervision and retention of the officer.
 
The Charleston Gazette says the court issued its 4-1 opinion Thursday. Chief Justice Robin Davis dissented.
 

Exit mobile version