Not-guilty verdict in sex assault case
By Medicine Hat News on August 25, 2018.
jappel@medicinehatnews.com @MHNJeremyAppel A man charged with sexual assault at a New Year’s party in Desert Blume on Dec. 31, 2016, has been found not guilty. Judge Eric Brooks issued his ruling at Medicine Hat Provincial Court on Friday. “I cannot say I disbelieve the accused,” said Brooks. “It is entirely possible that the assault occurred, but the Crown couldn’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.” The Crown had three witnesses at the trial, which occurred on April 28, 2018 — the complainant, her husband and her brother-in-law, who lives across the street from the accused. The accused, who was charged in March 2018, took the stand in his own defence. Although he ruled in favour of the accused, Brooks criticized the defence for engaging in myths about the appropriate behaviour of sexual assault survivors. The defence had argued the amount of time it took between the alleged crime and pressing charges damaged the complainant’s credibility. “I cannot emphasize strongly enough the fallacy of such an argument,” said Brooks. According to the judge’s ruling, the complainant had New Year’s supper with family in friends at her home in Cypress County, before going to the accused’s home in Desert Blume. She said she consumed seven or eight drinks at dinner. After midnight, the complainant allegedly vomited and passed out in the bathroom. The next thing she said she remembers is hearing a shout of “Oh my God” coming from the accused before he put his hand down her pants. He then allegedly picked her up, and said “You’re so beautiful” before she vomited again and urinated herself. The complainant testified she spoke with people about the incident, including the accused’s wife, the next day. He apologized via text and in person, blaming his actions on extreme inebriation. The complainant’s husband testified that the accused offered a vague apology, saying he was sorry “for touching you inappropriately.” The brother-in-law told the court that he confronted the accused, who acknowledged he made an advance on the complainant, but claimed he backed off after her rejection. 20
-19
