Attorneys argue use of force in sex abuse case against former Connellsville cop
A Fayette County judge will review case law and consider the arguments on both sides of a motion to dismiss charges against a former Connellsville Police officer accused of having sexual encounters with a teen, following a hearing held Thursday.
Ryan Reese, 43, faces charges of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI) and corruption of minors, stemming from a state grand jury indictment handed down in April.
His attorney, Melinda Dellarose, argued before President Judge John F. Wagner Jr. that there was no use of force involved in the alleged incidents.
“As a component of IDSI, there’s an element of forcible compulsion,” Dellarose said. “This victim consented.”
According to Deputy state Attorney General Patrick Schulte countered by stating, “Forcible compulsion in this case is not the traditional force.”
In this case, Schulte argued, the defendant used intellectual, moral or psychological coercion to compel the girl to have sex with him.
Schulte contended the court should consider factors like the difference in age between the alleged victim, who was 15 and 16 years old when the late-2013 incidents reportedly occurred.
Reese’s position of authority as it relates to the alleged victim is also important, Schulte said.
“The defendant was a police officer with charges pending over the victim,” he argued. According to court records, Reese met the alleged victim when she was involved in a drug raid at her mother’s Connellsville home.
The alleged victim previously testified Reese later told her if she did controlled drug buys, she and her boyfriend would be treated with leniency.
The Herald-Standard does not identify alleged victims of sexual assault.
The comparative mental states of the defendant and victim should also be considered by the court when examining whether force was used, Schulte maintained. He said the commonwealth’s position is that Reese knew the alleged victim was a heroin addict, and that he used that knowledge in perpetrating the alleged sexual abuse.
Regarding her testimony that Reese did not use force against her, Schulte said the victim probably was unaware of the legal definition of “force”.
“I imagine a 16-year-old is thinking of traditional use of force,” Schulte said. “The totality of the circumstances shows intellectual, moral and psychological force was used.”
Dellarose disagreed, arguing Reese did not use his position of authority to force the teen to perform sex acts, as evidenced in the girl’s own testimony.
Dellarose said she asked the alleged victim at the preliminary hearing whether Reese ever specifically said he would drop charges against her if she did what he asked, and the girl indicated he said, “all charges will be dropped.” According to Dellarose, Reese could have been referring only to the charges against the teen’s boyfriend.
As a matter of law, Dellarose argued, the court should make a finding at this stage that there was no use of force. Wagner asked her to provide case law supporting that contention, and Dellarose agreed to do so.
Dellarose argued that the teen’s testimony should be disregarded altogether because she gave inconsistent statements to the grand jury and the magisterial court at Reese’s preliminary hearing.
In her grand jury testimony, for example, the girl said the first time Reese allegedly asked her for oral sex, she declined, Dellarose said. At the preliminary hearing, the alleged victim said she did consent to perform oral sex the first time.
Dellarose argued the inconsistencies were so gross in the alleged victim’s testimony, that a jury shouldn’t be permitted to hear it. Because the corruption of minors charge relies on the prosecution proving a pattern of conduct on the part of Reese, Dellarose contended that charge should also be dismissed, if the teen’s testimony is thrown out.
“I understand the argument defense is making,” Schulte said, “but as a matter of law, inconsistencies are a matter for a jury to consider, in terms of credibility. Dismissal is not appropriate at this stage.”
Wagner said he would take the arguments into consideration.
He also denied from the bench a defense motion for change of venue, saying the matter could be revisited if a fair and impartial jury cannot be selected at the time of trial.