'Outercourse' Argument Fails in Brock Turner Rape Appeal

While it is often difficult to blame a convicted anything for filing any appeal, the California Sixth Appellate District Court didn't waste the opportunity to tell Brock Turner that he has no one to blame but himself. The court also pointed out in the order that he only got six months in county.

On appeal, Turner was arguing that the evidence was insufficient to show he had intent to rape because he only wanted to have 'outercourse' or 'dry-hump' his victim. The court dismissed this argument by carefully explaining that it didn't matter that his evidence at trial didn't point to intent to rape because a jury had enough of a record to not believe his evidence.

Substantial Evidence

Turner's appeal attempted to sway the appellate court that the jury did not have sufficient evidence to rest its findings that he intended to rape his victim, and that his victim did not consent to finger-penetration.

However, the court ruled that there was substantial evidence for a jury to rule as it did, particularly as to the fact that his victim drank so much that consent was a near impossibility. Also, it is worth noting that she was unresponsive and unconscious when discovered, with her underwear completely removed.

Turner seemed to expect the court to overturn the convictions because of his own testimony that his victim was awake and consenting. However, the appellate court's decision goes into great detail as to how each and every argument Turner makes just fails.

Related Resources:

• California Redefines Rape, Imposes New Mandatory Minimums (FindLaw's California Case Law)
• Will Aaron Perksy, Judge in Stanford Rape Case, Be Recalled? (FindLaw's California Case Law)
• San Diego Union Wins Pension Appeal at CA Supreme Court (FindLaw's California Case Law)