Stevens Iowa City free phone chat

Added: Na Machin - Date: 07.09.2021 17:23 - Views: 15722 - Clicks: 2462

We affirm. The evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, reveals the following facts. Stevens, the defendant, was thirty-three years old at the time of the offense.

Stevens Iowa City free phone chat

The victim, J. Both are homosexual and met in an internet chat room for gay men. They exchanged photographs, and according to J. The two arranged to meet in person that night. After Stevens arrived at J. When he returned to the car, he said he was sexually aroused and wished someone would perform oral sex on him. Stevens drove to a dark location on a street in Waterloo where J. Stevens ejaculated into J. Afterwards, J. Stevens represented that he was clean, and offered to pay for testing if J.

The pair then got some food, and Stevens took J. Upon returning home, J. In reality, Stevens was HIV positive and had been aware of this since The parties stipulated that. On the night of his sixteenth birthday, J. Both were negative. Stevens admitted at trial that he had met J. He also admitted that he did not tell J.

However, he denied that he knew J. When the State rested, and again at the conclusion of the trial, Stevens moved for judgment of acquittal, alleging insufficient evidence to support both counts. The motion was denied. The jury subsequently found Stevens guilty of both charges, and he was sentenced to twenty-five years on the criminal-transmission-of-HIV charge and ten years on the sexual-abuse charge. They were ordered to run consecutively.

Stevens Iowa City free phone chat

Stevens now appeals his conviction for the criminal transmission of HIV, again arguing that insufficient evidence exists to support the conviction. We will affirm the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal if substantial evidence in the record supports each element of the offense challenged by the defendant.

State v. Sayles, N. Evidence is substantial if it would convince a rational trier of fact that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In making this assessment, this court considers all the evidence and views it in the light most favorable to the State. The sole issue on this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction of criminal transmission of HIV. Stevens characterizes the issue as presenting two questions:. Under Iowa law, a person who knows that he or she is HIV positive commits a crime when that person engages in intimate contact with another person.

Between July 1,and September 11,the defendant engaged in intimate contact with [J. At the time of the intimate contact, [J. If the State has failed to prove any one of the elements, the defendant is not guilty. The jury instruction defining intimate contact mirrored the legislative definition and informed the jury that the State need not prove that the person exposed actually became infected with the HIV. It is well established that the State bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crime charged. See In re Winship, U. McMullin, N. The jury was instructed on this principle.

Stevens acknowledges that, in State v. Keene, N. See Keene, N. However, he argues that Keene can be distinguished because Keene involved a guilty plea and therefore relieved the State of its burden of proof in that case. See State v. Young, N. The State argues that the ificance of Keene, in taking judicial notice of the methods of transmission of the HIV, is in giving voice to what is common knowledge-that the HIV can be transmitted via semen and other bodily fluids and that sexual intercourse is a common method of transmitting the virus.

The State believes that, in light of Keene and its conclusion that the statute was sufficient to give notice of what acts were prohibited, the jury can be assumed to have the knowledge, common sense, and collective intelligence to know that oral sex resulting in ejaculation could result in the transmission of the HIV. Further, then, with respect to the suggestion that there must be causative proof, the Court looks to the decision of the Supreme Court in State vs. We agree with the State's position and the conclusion of the district court.

Dep't of Transp. Therefore, only facts to which sufficient notoriety attach so as to make it safe and proper to assume their existence without specific proof should be judicially noticed. Ladd, IowaN. By taking judicial notice in Keene that certain bodily fluids can transmit the HIV and that sexual intercourse is a manner of transmission of the HIV, we acknowledged what is, in fact, common knowledge.

Stevens Iowa City free phone chat

Therefore, the ificance of Keene lies not in the underlying basis of the case, i. In that situation, we look to the common meaning of the phrase. Tesch, N. Webster's Third New International Dictionary unabridged Under this definition, Keene should be read as taking judicial notice of the very issue before this court, i.

In any event, oral sex is a well-recognized means of transmission of the HIV. See People v. Russell, Ill. Dempsey, Ill. Defendant acknowledged that semen is a bodily fluid well known as a transmitter of the HIV. Oral sexual intercourse is a penetrative sexual contact which is recognized as allowing transmission of the virus. Thus, defendant clearly exposed the body of another to his bodily fluid in a manner that could result in the transmission of HIV.

City of Phoenix, 83 F. In addition to courts accepting as common knowledge methods of transmission of the HIV, the legislature has also done so. By recognizing that it is common knowledge that oral sex is a manner of transmission of the HIV, we find that the State did not fail to meet its burden of proof. Manning, N. Post, N. This is not the first time we have determined that jurors could rely on their common knowledge to support a conviction. Theodore, IowaN. The fact that the victim does not actually contract HIV does not impact on the charge, as the statute does not require that HIV actually be transmitted, only that the circumstances were such that it could have been transmitted.

Notably, we took judicial notice of these matters in Keene when considering Keene's constitutional challenge to the statute, not only in analyzing the existence of a factual basis for his guilty plea. Explore Resources For Practice Management. Legal Technology. Corporate Counsel. Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select. STATE v. Reset A A Font size: Print. Supreme Court of Iowa. Hendrickson, Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Ann E.

Facts and Prior Proceedings.

Stevens Iowa City free phone chat

The parties stipulated that, [t]he Defendant, Jimmy Dean Stevens, has known since being diagnosed in that his human immunodeficiency virus HIV status is positive. Scope of Review. Stevens characterizes the issue as presenting two questions: 1. Did the State prove that fellatio was so performed in this case beyond a reasonable doubt?

Stevens Iowa City free phone chat

email: [email protected] - phone:(409) 307-3221 x 5678

Home Care Benefit