United States v. James, No. 13-10543 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseThe district court granted a motion for acquittal after the jury rendered a guilty verdict against defendant on two counts of sexual abuse of a severely disabled woman under 18 U.S.C. 2242(2)(B). The district court found insufficient evidence that the victim was “physically incapable” of resisting or declining to participate in the sexual assault by defendant. The court concluded that a defendant may be convicted under section 2242(2)(B) where the victim had some awareness of the situation and - while not completely physically helpless - was physically hampered due to sleep, intoxication, or drug use and thereby rendered physically incapable. The court held that - to the extent a defendant raises a factual dispute regarding consent as a defense under section 2242(2)(B) - the jury is the appropriate fact-finder to weigh the question when evaluating the victim’s physical incapacity to decline participation or communicate her unwillingness to engage in the alleged sexual abuse. The district court erred by taking the question out of the jury’s domain after it had rendered a guilty verdict against defendant. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel reversed the district court’s decision granting a motion for acquittal after a jury rendered a verdict against the defendant on two counts of sexual abuse of a severely disabled woman under 18 U.S.C. § 2242(2)(B), vacated the judgment of acquittal, and remanded for reinstatement of the jury verdict. The panel held that “physically incapable” under § 2242(2)(B)—which punishes a sexual act with a person physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act— should be defined broadly and not confused with the more narrow “physically helpless” standard employed by the district court. The panel held that the government proffered sufficient evidence—when viewed in the light most favorable to it—to allow a rational juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the woman was physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating her unwillingness to engage in, a sexual act with the defendant. The panel held that—to the extent a defendant raises a factual dispute regarding consent as a defense under § 2242(2)(B)—the jury is the appropriate fact-finder to weigh the question when evaluating the victim’s physical incapacity to decline participation or communicate her unwillingness to engage in the alleged sexual abuse. UNITED STATES V. JAMES 3 Dissenting, Judge Kozinski wrote that, as the district court recognized, the government simply did not introduce the type of evidence that would allow “any rational trier of fact” to conclude that the woman’s physical limitations rendered her incapable of declining participation or communicating unwillingness.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.