## Facts

- Nolan R. Tevay was charged with two counts of second-degree child molestation based on a single bedroom incident involving his stepdaughter, “Jody.”
- Jody testified she went to wake Tevay for work, shook him, and Tevay grabbed her, pulled her into bed, touched her buttock, and forced her hand to touch his penis.
- Jody described Tevay’s eyes as “halfway open,” and stated he later warned her not to tell anyone or he would beat her.
- Immediately afterward, Jody appeared distressed; she told her mother, “I think Nolan thought I was you,” and urged her to “forget about it.”
- On a later date when told Tevay would return home, Jody disclosed the incident to family and then to her mother and police.
- In her police statement, Jody reported both that Tevay forced her to touch his penis and that he touched her vagina; at trial, she denied vaginal touching.
- Tevay denied any inappropriate conduct, testified he was a heavy sleeper, and suggested any contact could have been an unintentional reaction to being awakened.
- The jury acquitted Tevay on the count alleging vaginal touching and convicted him on the count alleging he forced Jody’s hand to touch his penis.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court’s intent instructions adequately communicated that second-degree child molestation requires intentional sexual contact, not accidental or negligent touching.
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing Tevay’s requested instruction explicitly directing acquittal if any touching was accidental or unintentional due to his being a heavy sleeper.

## Decision

- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that, read as a whole, the jury instructions required the jury to find intentional sexual contact for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification.
- The court held the trial justice did not err in refusing Tevay’s proposed instruction because the substance of the request was fairly covered by the charge given.

## Legal Principles

- Second-degree child molestation requires proof of intentional sexual contact for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification.
- Jury instructions are reviewed in their entirety; the question is whether they fairly and accurately state the law and do not reduce the state’s burden of proof.
- A trial justice need not use the exact language requested by a party if the substance of the requested instruction is reasonably and fairly covered in the instructions delivered.
- When the instructions require a finding that the contact was for sexual arousal or gratification and that each element was proved beyond a reasonable doubt, they adequately exclude conviction for accidental or inadvertent touching.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Tevay’s conviction because the jury charge, taken as a whole, required a finding of purposeful sexual contact and sufficiently conveyed that accidental touching would not satisfy the elements, making a separate defense-drafted “accidental touching” instruction unnecessary.


State v. Tevay, 707 A.2d 700 (R.I. 1998)