## Facts

- Randall C. Reynolds and J.D. worked in the same Fairbanks shopping mall and were acquainted but had not dated.
- On November 24, 1981, they went to dinner and a nightclub with Reynolds’s father and his father’s girlfriend.
- J.D. testified that when she asked to be taken home, Reynolds drove her to his apartment instead.
- J.D. testified Reynolds forced her into the apartment, locked the deadbolt, and kept the key, limiting her ability to leave.
- J.D. testified Reynolds had sexual intercourse with her against her will; she objected verbally but did not physically resist, and Reynolds did not strike or explicitly threaten her.
- J.D. testified she was afraid, including because she saw a handgun in the room; Reynolds did not refer to or handle it.
- J.D. testified Reynolds restrained her until the next morning, when he agreed to drive her home.
- Reynolds testified the intercourse was consensual and that he did not perceive any indication that J.D. was unwilling.
- Reynolds’s father and the father’s girlfriend testified J.D. appeared comfortable with Reynolds during the evening.
- A jury convicted Reynolds of first-degree sexual assault under AS 11.41.410, acquitted him of kidnapping, and the court imposed a five-year prison sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether AS 11.41.410 (first-degree sexual assault) was unconstitutional as vague or overbroad by criminalizing intercourse without physical resistance or explicit threats.
2. What culpable mental state applies to the “without consent” element and whether the jury had to be instructed on that mental state.
3. Whether the evidence was legally insufficient, requiring a directed verdict of acquittal on first-degree sexual assault.
4. Whether the trial court’s jury instructions on “without consent” and coercion were reversible error.
5. Whether a five-year sentence for first-degree sexual assault was excessive under Alaska sentencing review.

## Decision

- The Alaska Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and the five-year sentence.
- The court upheld AS 11.41.410 against vagueness and overbreadth challenges.
- The court construed the statute to require that the defendant at least recklessly disregard the victim’s lack of consent.
- Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the court held a reasonable jury could find intercourse without consent and reckless disregard; a directed verdict was not required.
- The court held the jury instructions, considered as a whole, adequately conveyed the elements and did not mislead the jury.
- The court held the sentence was not clearly mistaken.

## Legal Principles

- A sexual assault statute defining “without consent” in terms of coercion by force or by express or implied threat can provide sufficiently definite notice and is not invalid for vagueness merely because physical resistance or explicit threats are absent.
- Overbreadth does not apply where the statute targets coerced, unconsented sexual penetration rather than protected consensual sexual activity.
- When a statute is silent on the mental state for a material element, Alaska’s general culpability rules support implying at least recklessness for that element.
- For first-degree sexual assault, the state must prove knowing sexual penetration and at least reckless disregard of the victim’s lack of consent (i.e., disregard that the act was coerced by force or threat).
- Coercion and implied threat may be inferred from surrounding circumstances (e.g., isolation, confinement, control of exits, visible weapon), and questions of consent are typically for the jury when supported by evidence.
- On sentence review, an appellate court will affirm unless the sentence is clearly mistaken.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Alaska’s modern first-degree sexual assault framework, requiring proof that the defendant knowingly engaged in sexual penetration and at least recklessly disregarded the victim’s lack of consent; it also held the evidence and instructions supported the verdict and that the five-year sentence was not clearly mistaken.


Reynolds v. State, 664 P.2d 621 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983)