FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information
VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 251
Go to
Volume
11 Table of Contents - Go to Chapter
251
Table of Contents
251.5 Impotence
251.5.1 Defendant's Lack Of Desire Or Ability To Have Sexual Intercourse As Defense To Sex Offense
251.5.2 Impotence As Defense Theory: Relationship To Presumption Of Innocence
FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information
VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 251
251.5.1 Defendant's Lack Of Desire Or Ability To Have Sexual Intercourse As Defense To Sex Offense
PRACTICE NOTE: "It may be asserted by way of defense that the defendant was impotent." [Footnote omitted.] (Wharton’s Criminal Law (West, 15th Ed. 1995) § 286, p. 107; see also Foster v. Lockhart (8th Cir. 1983) 9 F3d 722, 726 [inconsistency between defense of impotence and alibi did not excuse failure to investigate].)
Hence, it may be a defense theory to certain types of sexual offenses, such as rape, that the defendant's physical condition impaired his ability and/or desire to have sexual intercourse. (See e.g., State v. Friend (WV 1925) 130 SE 102.)
FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information
VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 251
251.5.2 Impotence As Defense Theory: Relationship To Presumption Of Innocence
See generally FORECITE National™ 250.4.4 [Defense Theory Which Negates Element Of The Offense: No Burden Of Proof On The Defendant].