Another question

[1jr2ps]

What is the name of your state? MO

In the formal complaint made by a prosecutor, if it reads “… Child Molestation in the First Degree…” and then has “…to wit: sexual intercourse.”, does this mean he has to prove sexual intercourse occurred for the charges to be valid? Or, is this just the basis of his charge and he only has to prove something happened to fit the charge but not necessarily “sexual intercourse”?

I am only asking due to the charge that was filed. It really doesn’t matter… but I just wanted to know.

 

[CdwJava]

What code section(s) was he finally charged with?

That code section will have the elements that must be established under the law. In this case I suspect that the "to wit ..." part is an articulation of what act was done to constitute the sexual molestation charge.

- Carl

 

[1jr2ps]

The main charge

The Prosecuting Attorney of XXXXXXXX County, State of Missouri, charges the defendant in violation of Section 566.067 RSMo, committed the Class B felony of CHILD MOLESTATION IN THE FIRST DEGREE, punishable upon conviction under Section 558.011.1(2), RSMo, in that on or about June 24, 2006, in the County of XXXXXXXX, State of Missouri, the defendant subjected XXX, who was then less than fourteen years old, to wit: thirteen years old, date of birth: 10-05-1992, to sexual contact, to wit: sexual intercourse.

There is another charge for sexual misconduct for my other daughter. Neither of which is what the detective wanted iaw public records. He asked for the Stat Rape.

But I have been getting "help" myself... woo-hoo!

Just to let all the other dumb-asses out there know - this guy is extremely lucky... so far.

 

[CdwJava]

Sounds pretty standard. The sexual intercourse sounds as if it is the element of the molestation charge they are alleging.

Be prepared for an attack on the victim and her family (you folks) if the defendant does not take a plea deal. If allowed, the defendants will sometimes try to portray the victim as a loose lush from a household of irresponsible losers ... just be (emotionally) ready if they try.

- Carl

 

[1jr2ps]

Yeah

I’ve been told that – but what should I expect? I can account for my daughters always EXCEPT for the time they were at this fire-work’s stand.

For me there is nothing. I did spit gum out in front of the hospital in that town when they refused to take my daughter’s blood for dna – and I felt guilty! I visualized the old people coming out and stepping in it!

I’m such a ****… the old people didn’t deserve that gum on their shoes.

I really did feel bad and wished I didn’t do it.

 

[CdwJava]

Inference doesn't need truth - only innuendo. Chances are a court won't allow an attack on the victim, but you should be prepared just in case.

- Carl