MIGUEL A. FUENTES v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Hotten, July 12, 2017,
Rape and Sex Offense – A medical diagnosis is not necessary in order to demonstrate that a victim is “substantially cognitively impaired” (formerly “mentally defective” )

(Joining Judgment Only- Watts)
(Dissent- Adkins- Employment records were relevant to the victim’s level of mental defectiveness)

I’m not sure how neither the majority nor the dissent realized that the employment records were relevant to Fuentes’ understanding of R’s status

Ms. R.’s testimony was elicited through an American Sign Language interpreter, a certified deaf interpreter, and a Spanish interpreter who interpreted for the deaf interpreter.
Wait, what???
Strike that. Better “wait, what?” line:

Page 23, last paragraph.

Facts
Fuentes was charged with 2nd degree rape and related offenses for having sex with a victim who was “substantially cognitively impaired” (formerly written in the statute as “mentally defective”).
The victim was a co-worker of Fuentes’ whom he had known for 14 years. According to the testimony of her family members and her case worker, the victim was not able to express herself, had difficulty understanding and communicating with others, and could not take care of herself. She was also deaf and had gone to a “special school for disabilities”.
When the victim testified at trial, she could not verbally describe what had happened to her; she demonstrated it with two dolls.
As a result of the sexual encounter with Fuentes, the victim became pregnant. The State’s evidence at trial included DNA test results that proved Fuentes was the father of her child.
When Fuentes testified, he admitted he had sex with the victim but claimed it was consensual and initiated by her. He acknowledged he knew the victim “wouldn’t talk and could not hear” but admitted nothing else about his knowledge of her mental capacity.
The jury convicted Fuentes and he was sentenced to 20 years with all but 12 suspended for the rape charge and concurrent sentences for the other charges.
Fuentes appealed, arguing that the State should have had to introduce medical evidence that the victim was “substantially cognitively impaired.”
The Court of Special Appeals disagreed and Fuentes requested that the Court of Appeals review that decision.
Law from the Case
Held: The Court of Appeals agreed with the Court of Special Appeals. The State presented enough evidence for the jury to find that the victim was significantly cognitively impaired without having to introduce evidence of the victim’s medical diagnosis.
Rape- While the crime of rape can be committed by force or threat of force, it can also be committed against a victim that cannot legally give valid consent either because of their age or because of their condition.
Second Degree Rape –Victims Unable to Give Consent- This form of rape requires evidence:
(1) the defendant engaged in vaginal intercourse (or, as of October, a sexual act – see footnote) with the victim;
(2) the victim couldn’t give valid consent or understand what was going on because he /she was:
• substantially cognitively impaired (mental disorder)
• mentally incapacitated (drunk/drugged/etc)
• or physically helpless (unconscious or otherwise unable to resist)
and (3) the defendant knew or reasonably should have known this.
Third-degree Sex Offense – –Victims Unable to Give Consent- Sexual contact with an individual who cannot give consent (substantially cognitively impaired, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless) is a 3rd-degree sex offense if the suspect knew or should have known that the victim was in one of those categories.
Sex Crimes- Consent – It is not necessary for the State to prove that a victim who is substantially cognitively impaired, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless did not “consent” in a rape or sexual offense case. The victim’s lack of consent is automatically established by proof that the victim was in one of these three categories.
From the Case: Where three witnesses described the victim’s disabilities and “the jury was able to observe [the victim’s] demeanor when she testified and draw inferences relative to her limited ability to communicate”, the jury could reasonably infer that the victim was substantially cognitively impaired, and Fuentes knew or reasonably should have known that.
From the Case: Records of the victim’s performance evaluations of her job in the housekeeping department of a hotel were considered irrelevant by the court to whether the victim could understand and consent to vaginal intercourse or a sexual act, and were properly excluded from the trial when offered by defense counsel.