Orengo v. State

Defendant could not invoke the rape shield statute to prevent the victim from offering otherwise relevant evidence in his trial for rape, false imprisonment, sexual battery and battery.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a 2009 jury trial, Michael Orengo was convicted of rape,1 false imprisonment,2 sexual battery,3 and battery4 ; he was acquitted of aggravated sodomy. The trial court granted his subsequent motion for new trial solely as to the rape conviction, and in 2012, he was retried for rape and convicted. Orengo appeals the denial of his motions for new trial as to all four charges.5 With regard to the 2009 trial, Orengo argues that the trial court erred by failing to sua sponte charge the jury on consent and by admitting testimony from a particular State witness not disclosed during discovery. He also alleges that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to: request a jury charge on consent; request a continuance or to cross-examine a particular State witness; or object to testimony regarding the victim’s sexual orientation and activity, which testimony violated Georgia’s Rape Shield Law. With regard to his rape conviction resulting from the 2012 trial, Orengo argues that the trial court erred by permitting the State to shift the burden of proof by arguing during closing statements; admitting the testimony of a particular State witness; failing to direct a verdict of acquittal because the State failed to prove venue; trying him for rape in violation of his double jeopardy rights; and admitting testimony regarding the victim’s sexual orientation and activity in violation of Georgia’s Rape Shield Statute. He also argues that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to move for a directed verdict of acquittal based on the State’s failure to prove venue or to file a double jeopardy plea in bar. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, with the defendant no longer enjoying a presumption of innocence.6 We do not weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses, but determine only whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.7

Orengo v. State

Defendant could not invoke the rape shield statute to prevent the victim from offering otherwise relevant evidence in his trial for rape, false imprisonment, sexual battery and battery.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report