Sexsomnia: A Controversial Defense in Sexual Offense Cases

Sexsomnia Scapegoat

Sexsomnia is an increasingly unique defense used in courtrooms when someone is accused of a sexual offense while they were asleep. There is a great deal of confusion and debate surrounding the concept and its legal implications.

To gain a comprehensive understanding of sexsomnia and its implications in the courtroom, it is important to explore the background of the condition, the legalities, and the potential implications for criminal proceedings.

A Glimpse into the World of Sexsomnia

State v. Scott

Overview

• In 1992, Scott was convicted by a jury for the assault, rape, and murder of Lesa Buckley
• Buckley’s body was found on July 8, 1990 in Cedar Lake near New Paris, Ohio
• The lake was near a quarry where Buckley, Scott, and 60-120 others attended a party the previous night

Trial and Conviction

• The jury considered testimony from dozens of witnesses and circumstantial evidence
• Key evidence included:
  • Eyewitness testimony
  • Circumstantial evidence linking Scott to the crimes
• There was no direct physical evidence linking Scott to the crimes1
• Scott’s defense involved arguing there were one or more alternative suspects1
• The identity of the contributor to DNA samples from Buckley was unknown1
• Despite this, the jury found Scott guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of assault, rape, and murder1

Appeals and Post-Conviction

• Scott’s convictions were upheld on direct appeal in 19941
• In 2020, Scott petitioned for post-conviction DNA testing, which was initially denied1
• In 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed and allowed the DNA testing request:
  • They found an exclusion DNA result could create reasonable doubt
  • This was due to the lack of direct physical evidence originally presented1
• The case was remanded for further proceedings on the DNA testing request1

So in summary, while Scott was convicted in 1992 largely on circumstantial evidence, decades later he was granted the opportunity to pursue DNA testing that could potentially exonerate him or create reasonable doubt about his guilt.

R v Spencer

Case Overview

• A landmark 2008 case in the Northern Territory put the sexsomnia or “sleep sex” defense in the spotlight
• The case involved Matthew David Spencer, charged with sexual offenses against a woman

Defense Arguments

• Spencer’s defense team argued he suffered from sexsomnia
  • A rare sleep disorder where individuals engage in sexual behaviors while asleep without awareness or control

Evidence Presented

• During the trial, the defense presented expert testimony from a psychiatrist:
  • The psychiatrist stated Spencer was a regular sleepwalker
  • Evidence suggested Spencer may have been in a sexsomnia state during the alleged acts

Trial Outcome

• Justice Southwood, the judge, informed the jury they could accept the sexsomnia evidence as a defense
• Ultimately, the jury acquitted Spencer of all charges:
  • Acquitted of gross indecency
  • Acquitted of sexual intercourse without consent

Significance

• Considered one of the first high-profile Australian cases where a sexsomnia defense led to acquittal on sexual assault charges
• Highlighted the emerging medical recognition of sexsomnia as a legitimate sleep disorder
• Raised legal debates around criminal culpability for unconscious acts committed during sexsomnia states

Controversy

• The acquittal proved controversial
  • Some argued there should still be accountability for non-consensual acts, even if unconscious
• However, the case paved the way for further examination of how to legally handle sexsomnia cases

So in summary, the R v Spencer case was groundbreaking in successfully using a sexsomnia defense to secure acquittals on sexual offense charges in Australia, while also sparking controversy and debates around the boundaries of criminal responsibility for unconscious acts.

TI v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 62

Overview

• The appellant (TI) was tried and found guilty of incest and committing acts of indecency on his 11-year-old stepdaughter
• TI appealed the verdicts, arguing they were unreasonable

Sexsomnia Defense

• TI claimed the possibility of him being asleep (sexsomnia) during the alleged offenses could not be reasonably excluded
• Two medical experts testified about sexsomnia:
  • Dr. Buchanan, an expert in sexsomnia
  • Dr. Allnutt, another expert witness

Expert Testimony

• Dr. Buchanan’s Testimony:
  • Conceded there was no definitive test to diagnose sexsomnia
  • Research into the phenomenon was still in its early stages
• Dr. Allnutt’s Testimony:
  • Provided ambivalent evidence
  • Unclear if TI’s actions were voluntary or a result of sexsomnia

Appeal Decision

• The appeal was ultimately dismissed by the court
• Key findings:
  • The guilty verdicts were reasonably open to the jury based on the available evidence
  • The expert testimony raised only a theoretical possibility of involuntary acts due to a sleep state
  • The credibility assessment of the complainant versus the appellant was crucial
  • It was deemed a “classic jury case” to weigh the evidence and credibility

Significance

• Highlighted the challenges of successfully raising a sexsomnia defense
  • Despite expert testimony, convictions can still be upheld
• Demonstrated the role of credibility assessments in such cases
  • Jury must weigh expert evidence against testimony of complainant/defendant
• Reflected the evolving and complex legal considerations around sexsomnia

So in summary, while the sexsomnia defense was raised with expert testimony, the ambiguity around definitively proving it, combined with the credibility issues at play, led to the appeal being dismissed in this Australian case involving serious sexual offenses against a child.

R v Coulson, Brooks and others (UK 2013-2014)

Based on the provided search results, here are the key details about the case R v Coulson, Brooks and others (UK 2013-2014) – the UK phone hacking trial:

• This was a high-profile criminal trial in the UK related to allegations of phone hacking by journalists and private investigators working for News of the World and other News International publications owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.
• The main defendants were Rebekah Brooks, former editor of News of the World, and Andy Coulson, former editor who succeeded Brooks.
• The trial revealed that Brooks and Coulson had a secret 6-year affair from around 1998-2004, covering the period when the phone hacking conspiracy allegedly took place.
• The prosecution argued this close personal relationship showed they could have been aware of and trusted each other regarding the illegal activities.
• However, the trial was unrelated to the use of sleepwalking or sexsomnia as a legal defense. It focused on the phone hacking charges against the journalists and editors.
• There was no physical evidence directly linking Brooks to phone hacking during her editorship. The prosecution’s case against her was considered weak.
• After a lengthy trial from 2013-2014, Coulson was convicted of conspiracy to intercept voicemails, while Brooks was acquitted of all charges.

So in summary, while a notable UK trial, it did not involve any legal arguments around sleepwalking, sexsomnia or related sleep disorders as a defense. The case centred on charges of phone hacking against senior News Corp employees in the early 2000s.

R v Luedecke

Sexsomnia is legally recognized as a mental impairment that can lead to a verdict of not criminally responsible in Canada, based on the leading case R v Luedecke:

Overview

• In Canada, sexsomnia (sleep sex) is legally recognized as a mental impairment
• It can potentially lead to a verdict of not criminally responsible (NCR) due to mental disorder
• The leading case on this issue is R v Luedecke

R v Luedecke Case Facts

• In July 2003, Jan Luedecke, a Toronto landscaper, sexually assaulted a woman while they were both sleeping on a couch at a house party
  • The woman awoke to find Luedecke having non-consensual sex with her
  • Luedecke was charged with sexual assault
• Luedecke’s defense argued he suffered from the rare sleep disorder sexsomnia
  • Where people can engage in sexual behaviors while asleep without conscious awareness
• During the 2005 trial, Dr. Colin Shapiro, a sleep expert, testified:
  • He stated Luedecke suffered from parasomnia, which includes sexsomnia
  • Sleep studies showed Luedecke had brain patterns consistent with the disorder

Trial and Initial Ruling

• The judge accepted the sexsomnia defense
• Ruled that if Luedecke was truly asleep, he could not be held legally responsible for unconscious actions
• Luedecke was acquitted of the sexual assault charge

Appeal and Subsequent Proceedings

• The acquittal was controversial, with women’s groups arguing there should still be accountability
• The Crown appealed, and Luedecke’s acquittal was overturned
• A new trial focused on whether his automatism amounted to a “mental disorder”
  • Ultimately, Luedecke consented to a verdict of NCR due to mental disorder
• The Ontario Review Board later granted Luedecke an absolute discharge
  • Determining he did not pose a significant public safety threat

Legal Significance

• This was one of the first high-profile Canadian cases where sexsomnia successfully defended against sexual assault charges
• It clarified that sleepwalking/sexsomnia qualifies as a “disease of the mind”
  • Allowing for NCR verdicts in such cases under Canada’s 1992 legislative reforms
• It provided guidance on applying the NCR regime to mentally disordered offenders
• Highlighted complex issues around unconscious behavior, criminal culpability and public safety assessments

So in summary, the groundbreaking Luedecke case established the legal recognition of sexsomnia as a mental impairment in Canada that can result in NCR verdicts rather than convictions, subject to review board assessments of whether the individual poses a safety risk.

R v Parks (1992)

Overview

• In R v Parks (1992), the Supreme Court of Canada heard the case of Kenneth Parks who was initially charged with murder and attempted murder of his in-laws.
• In 1987, Parks drove 23 km to his parents-in-law’s house where he killed one and seriously injured the other while they were both asleep in bed. He
• attacked them with a tire iron while in a state of sleepwalking (somnambulism).
• He then drove to a nearby police station.
• In applying the internal cause factor, the court accepted unanimous expert evidence that sleepwalking was “not an illness, whether physical, mental or neurological”, that sleep is a normal condition, and the involuntary conduct was caused by this normal condition

Trial Court

• At his murder trial, Parks raised the defense of automatism due to sleepwalking.
• Expert testimony confirmed Parks was likely sleepwalking during the attacks.
• The jury acquitted Parks of murder, accepting the sleepwalking defense.

Issue Before Supreme Court

• The key issue was whether sleepwalking/somnambulism should be classified as:
  • Non-insane automatism (allowing full acquittal)
  • Or a “disease of the mind” requiring a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity

Supreme Court Decision

• The majority (5 judges) upheld Parks’ acquittal:
  • They accepted sleepwalking could constitute non-insane automatism
  • If proven, it entitled Parks to a full acquittal rather than a verdict of insanity
• The dissenting minority (3 judges) argued sleepwalking should be treated as a “disease of the mind”
  • Requiring a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity

Legal Principles

• The majority outlined key principles:
  • For the “disease of the mind” defense, the condition must be an internal cause rooted in the accused’s psychological state
  • And it must render the accused a continuing danger to public safety
• Sleepwalking, being a non-recurring condition triggered externally, did not meet this test

Significance

• R v Parks established that sleepwalking/somnambulism can ground a defense of non-insane automatism in Canadian criminal law
• It allowed for full acquittals in cases where sleepwalking is proven as the cause of violent acts
• But it maintained a distinction from “diseases of the mind” requiring special insanity verdicts

So in summary, this landmark ruling clarified the legal status of sleepwalking as a potential defense leading to full acquittal, separate from mental disorder defenses, in the Canadian justice system.

R v Granger

Overview

Sane automatism was raised as a defence in the first reported sexsomnia case, R v Granger.

• Granger was charged with sexual assaulting a four-year-old girl, who had crawled into her parents’ bed where Granger happened to be sleeping.
• Her aunt found her, next to a sleeping Granger.
• She was crying and said without prompting that he had put his finger in her vagina.

Key Issues

• A psychiatrist acknowledged as an expert in sleep disorders testified that Granger was suffering from parasomnia when he removed the child’s underwear and fondled her genitals.
• The court held that the psychiatrist’s opinion was supported by factors such as disorientation on awakening, amnesia, trigger factors (stress and excessive fatigue), no attempt to conceal the crime, and the conduct was out of character.
• The court then considered whether the sexsomnia was sane or insane automatism.
• The judges accepted psychiatric evidence that the risk of recurrence was small, and that the episode was triggered by external causes.
• Granger was found not guilty.

England’s Approach

• English courts have focused solely on the “external factor” approach to determine if involuntary conduct is sane or insane automatism.
• If there is an internal malfunction of the mind, the conduct is considered insane automatism, regardless of likelihood of recurrence.
• Despite the medical view that sleepwalking is a “disease of the mind” (internal cause), sexsomnia has been treated as sane automatism in England.

Case Outcomes

• Out of 18 known rape cases from 1996-2011 where sexsomnia was pleaded as a defense:
  • 12 ended in acquittals
  • 1 Scottish case was “not proven” (acquittal)
  • 5 ended in guilty verdicts
  • 9 of the 18 cases occurred between 2009-2011
• Notable acquittals include cases like James Bilton (2005), Ken Ecott (2007), and David Pooley (2007) where defendants had histories of sleepwalking.
• In recent cases like Zack Thompson (2012), Simon Morris (2013), and Gary Forbes (2013), the sexsomnia defense was unsuccessful.

Key Consideration

• The key issue appears to be whether the court accepts that the sexsomnia episode was genuine.
• If accepted as genuine, it has generally led to full acquittals.
• There does not seem to be examination of whether it qualifies as sane or insane automatism specifically.

So in summary, English courts have tended to treat genuine cases of sexsomnia as sane automatism allowing full acquittals, rather than considering it a potential “disease of the mind” or insane automatism.

Jade McCrossen-Nethercott v UK Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)

Jade McCrossen-Nethercott suing the UK Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) after her rape case was dropped due to claims by the accused of sexsomnia:

Overview

• In 2017, Jade McCrossen-Nethercott (then 24 years old) reported being raped by a man while she was asleep on a sofa after a night out.
• The man was initially charged with rape and the case was set to go to trial.
• However, 13 days before the trial, the CPS dropped the case against the advice of police.

Sexsomnia Claims

• The CPS claimed two sleep experts said it was possible McCrossen-Nethercott had an episode of the rare sleep disorder sexsomnia.
• Sexsomnia can cause people to engage in sexual activity while unconscious and unaware.
• The experts, hired by the defense and CPS, stated her behavior could have appeared as if she was awake and consenting.

McCrossen-Nethercott’s Fight

• McCrossen-Nethercott was devastated by the decision to drop her case based on the sexsomnia claims.
• She obtained all the evidence, including the sleep experts’ reports which she felt gave too much weight to the sexsomnia theory without meeting her.
• She commissioned her own sleep expert who had never seen a case of an alleged victim having sexsomnia.
• After challenging the decision, the CPS admitted the case should not have been dropped and apologized.

Legal Action

• McCrossen-Nethercott is now suing the CPS for damages on human rights grounds.
• Her case has raised concerns about how rape cases are handled and the use of sexsomnia as a defense tactic.
• It highlights the difficulties victims face in getting justice, even with evidence like DNA matching the accused.

So in summary, McCrossen-Nethercott’s high-profile case exposed flaws in how the CPS evaluated unproven sexsomnia claims, leading to her pursuing legal action against them after her credible rape allegation was initially dismissed.

R. v. J.A

So in summary, this case did not involve sexsomnia as a defense, nor did the trial judge accept such a defense and acquit the accused. Rather, it centred on whether unconsciousness negates any prior consent given for sexual activity, with the Supreme Court ultimately ruling that it does.

Citations:

• https://www.law.cornell.edu/women-and-justice/resource/r_v_ja
• https://jaapl.org/content/jaapl/46/1/78.full.pdf
• https://jaapl.org/content/46/1/78
• https://www.criminal-lawyers.com.au/blog/criminal-defence/sleep-sex-sexsomnia-criminal-defence
• https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/188/1-2/e436/6209728
• https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=1369010
• https://www.leaf.ca/case_summary/r-v-j-a-2011
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_JA
• https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/oct/05/jade-mccrossen-nethercott-sue-cps-rape-case-dropped-sexsomnia