Saw this on Deadspin today, but it really hits home because I work at NCSU.
Tennis player charged with sex crime against teammate

It's just annoying that people are still being charged with laws that should be unconstitutional under Lawrence v. Texas. Not to mention that the local TV station sent a reporter to the courthouse to cover the story. It would have been a non-issue if it had been a guy and a girl. Ugh.

A total non-issue? I don't think so. I don't understand "crimes against nature" charges but if I woke up to find someone (guy or girl) blowing me without my consent I'd want sexual assault charges filed.

That's a good point. I should have been more clear. 'Crimes against nature' doesn't deal with whether or not the sex was consentual. You can see the law here.

The athlete will have to be held accountable for his actions. However, if it is rape, charge him under the appropriate law. That's at the root of my annoyance with the situation.

They can't really charge him with "crimes against nature", can they? Rape sure, but like you said, sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional in 2003.

Can one of the lawyers/law savvy people out there clue me in on the logic here?

Since he was just blowing him, that's obviously not sodomy or rape. And how do we know that the guy didn't just go into gay panic, this will be hard to prove as non-consensual. The history of their relationship, etc., will all come into play. Has he had same sex relations before? We're they sleeping in the same bed? Etc..

Sodomy is not just intercourse. Under the legal definition, oral/genital contact is sodomy. "Just blowing him" is no defense. If it is unwanted sexual contact, then it is a crime. The reaction that we need to investigate the victim reminds me of every rape case I've worked on.

It's an assault. Sexual assault laws were obviously not declared unconstitutional under Lawrence v. Texas. I'm not sure why he would have been charged with a crime against nature unless that is what NC now calls a sexual assault. Maybe the legislature has redefined "crimes against nature" to make it constitutional (i.e., they put an element of "no consent "in the definition whereas before, it didn't matter whether or not there was consent). Maybe a crime against nature carries a stiffer penalty than an ordinary assault in NC.

I don't know that you have to investigate the victim so much as you have to investigate the victim's relationship with the accused. Whether or not the guy has had gay sex in the past is irrelevant. I can't imagine that a man who rapes a woman would be able to use "well, she's had sex with men in the past" as a defense. Maybe I'm being naive when it comes to rape cases (I'm not a criminal lawyer).

I thought the supreme court only made a clear ruling that gender-discriminatory anti-sodomy laws like Texas' were unconsititutional. North Carolina may be one of several states that had laws against oral and/or anal sex that theoretically apply to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. I'm not sure the Supreme court ruling applies. (anybody got the decision handy?) And yes, it is unquestionably a sexual assault.

Since very little information that's been released so far in this case resembles a rape case, an investigation is obviously necessary. Two guys sleeping in the same room or same bed is obviously a different situation and any court of law is going to ask questions about the accusation - as well as the fact that straight men sometimes visit the other side but certainly won't admit it.

TC - Innocent until proven guilty is still the law as far as I know. And since when is oral sex considered sodomy?

Sodomy is usually considered any sex that isn't vaginal.

That's kind of right. According to the Larence opinion syllabus, the Court held: "The Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause." I'm no constitutional law guru, but I think it's important that it was held to be a violation of the due process clause rather than the equal protection clause. The question the Court answered was whether the two gentlemen from Texas "were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution." If it were decided under the equal protection clause, then I think JC would be right that a state could prohibit sodomy so long as it applied equally to everyone (gay, straight, bi). But I think because it was a due process issue (i.e., a liberty issue), the opinion decriminalizes consensual bedroom behavior between two adults. Basically, states can't tell you what you can and cannot do in your bedroom.

Here are the first few sentences of the opinion: "Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct." I think that says a mouthfull.

Anyone in law school right now who can help us out? It's been some time for me, although I still like to pretend I know what I'm talking about. Or I'm sure this was discussed in depth via the Outsporters in 2003 - there are lots of lawyers on this site. I haven't checked the archives. Here's the link to the case http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html if you want to decide for yourselves.

Back to the gentleman in NC. "First Degree Sexual Offense," for which it appears he could have been charged (forcible sexual contact without a weapon and without consent), is a class C Felony whereas "Crimes Against Nature" is a Class I Felony. Under NC law, Class C felony carries a punishment of "50 years or life imprisonment, or fine, or both." A Class I felony carries a max punishment of 5 years imprisonment or a fine. I guess there is a question of whether you use force if you sexually assault someone who is sleeping, and maybe that's why the PD went with the crime against nature. On the other hand, I'm of the mindset that the language of the crime against nature statute is WAY too broad and unconstitutional.

Regardless, I don't think this is the case that is going to test the constitutionality of the NC law. I'm guessing the accused is going to do his very best to make the matter go away quickly rather than fight it for several years for the betterment of gays everywhere. I imagine he's awfully embarrassed right now and wishes (if it's all true) he could go back in time and make a better decision.

Bryan, as I and others have already noted above, sodomy is not just intercourse and I did state IF it was unwanted. Take a chill pill.

Here's more about the story:



I don't know, I feel sorry for the kid. Hard to know if he's just a desperate closet case who made a (very) bad decision, or a predatory guy who would continue to act like this without (and maybe with) serious intervention, or - and yes this is possible though unlikely - someone who'd had drunken sex with this guy before and just got caught up in a gay panic situation this time around.

Joe, this is a serious question - the guy is facing Class 1 felony charges, extraordinary humiliation, and the probable end of his academic and athletic career, at least in his home state. If a friend of yours did try to blow you while you were asleep after a party, would you really want that for him or her? This Bevins guy seemed to have no power over the other guy, as shown by the subsequent beating. Perhaps I'm a complete sexist dunce but I just don't see this as the same as a guy assaulting a woman. It was unwanted but not "forced."

Also, and this is another serious question, if the victim in this case got off and then called the cops, does that have any bearing on the case?

Here's more background on NC's Sodomy Law, and how they can continue to use it after the Lawrence v. Texas ruling:
N.C. sodomy law still destroying lives

It's also worth noting that the sodomy charge only deals with what type of sex it was, not whether or not it was sexual assault.

::shaking my head:: I certainly have done this to someone while they were sleep but geez man...before you rap on the mic you have to know that the guy wouldn't mind. If I awoke to someone doing that to me who I didn't want, without my consent, as is allegedly being told, I'd be rather heated. It says something though that this guy pressed charges because I would think most guys wouldn't even go to the authorities, but would just opt to kick his ass. Hmm...you always wonder if thats the "real" story. I would think that if it went so far as charges being pressed, it is.

I do feel sorry for him, if in fact he is a closet case and decided to act on his desires that way, or if they actually had consensual sex and the other guy then freaked out. But anyone who knows me well enough, as compared to being just an acquaintance, would not do that to me without asking me first. If it were a friend I'd be angry but I suppose I wouldn't press charges.

I strongly believe that no means no, and in some cases the word "no" doesn't even need to be said. And you can't say "yes" or "no" if you're not awake.

This is a deep discussion. We studied Lawrence in American Constitution class. It's interesting to note that in Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion in Lawrence v. Texas , she disagrees with the assessment that the law violated the Due Process clause. She feels the law is a violation of Equal Protection, and states that the appellants and the majority should have made that argument. As to the ambiguity of the NC law, since it's not clearly defined, it could be argued in the U.S. Supreme Court. That is the same logic the Court used to overturn the abortion law in Roe v. Wade .

Since we don't know whether the victim really WAS raped, it's going to be a huge mess. The only ones who know if there was consent are on opposite sides of the courtroom. Like someone mentioned, the past sexual and criminal histories of both defendant and victim need to be examined. However, if it wasn't consensual, then sexual assault charges are appropriate.

Ah, I may have confused O'Connor's opinion with that of the majority.

I could be wrong, but irrespective of this particular case, which sounds like rape and assault--unwanted sexual advances and activity constituting such--it appears that what will strike this "crimes against nature" law off the books, or legally invalidate it, is for some brave gay, lesbian or bisexual person to be charged under it, and then to take the case to the state courts, where the law's violation of the SCOTUS will invalidate it. So, who's going to be the brave soul or souls?

No means no people.

I have to withhold opinion without knowing the background of the relationship between the players and, more specifically, what happened on this particularly night at that time.

I can very easily see how this "crime" could have been a result of gay panic, as someone else posted, where there was no crime committed, at all, just consent and then a change of heart. Perhaps there was an existing sexual relationship between them and, during this encounter, the "victim" thought someone else in the apartment saw/heard them.

This is just as plausible as the story the unnamed player is telling.

TC - this is a discussion board and little of what you've posted makes sense. Therefore the discussion won't be chilling quite yet. Wiser minds must weigh in.

Sodomy is a specific sex act, not all sex acts.

Dodges flying fur

Bryan, you need to read the definition(s) of sodomy again. Or perhaps for the first time. Under the law, there are various types of acts that are listed as sodomy. Many people (not all) assume sodomy is just anal intercourse. As has been stated in various posts, sodomy can be various acts, including oral sex.

I have nothing but compassion for this kid.

Seriously!! Sheesh!!

There may actually be a reason to charge someone with sodomy vs. rape. Rape charges rely on the other party being willing to testify in open court and there is always an issue of credibility and consent. In this case, it may be easier to prove sodomy (either through a confession or the fact consent is not an issue).

I have nothing but compassion for both of them but they deserve to be heard equally, and the full story needs to come out before any condemning of anyone's actions. We all remember the false and inaccurate accusations made regarding the stripper and the frat boys. There are far worse things to wake up to than this but again, we don't know what preceded it.

I understand archaic sodomy laws mean more than just *ss f*cking. Thank you. It just doesn't make much sense to me to call it sodomy. Call it sexual assault, yes, but sodomy? Obviously the lawmakers were afflicted.

I have to say i have found myself in a similar situation but no sex happen and we both were drunk i asked him and he said yea. the next day he was pissed off that he did it and told people i made him let me give him head. now i dont know about you but i dont think anyone can make you do anything. It wasnt with the police but he told a few of my teammates and i wa spissed. But i think this is why the NCAA or some other organization should help people who are in college athletics who dont know how to meet tothers like themselves or even where to go for support. its not as easy as one would think trying to be an athlete and a college student with basic human needs for affection and love.

Which explains why something like this will not reach the courtroom, nor should it.

---

LOL.