State v. Kelso-Christy
Iowa Supreme Court
911 N.W.2d 663 (2018)
- Written by Kelly Nielsen
Facts
Michael Kelso-Christy (defendant) went to high school with S.P. and S.G. Years later, Kelso-Christy created a fake Facebook profile for S.P. and successfully convinced S.G. that the profile belonged to S.P. Posing as S.P., Kelso-Christy convinced S.G. to meet for a sexual encounter while blindfolded and handcuffed. As instructed, S.G. blindfolded herself in her bedroom and waited for the person she thought was S.P. When Kelso-Christy arrived, he said nothing. Kelso-Christy quickly handcuffed S.G. to the bed, had sexual intercourse with her, and left without undoing the blindfold or handcuffs. S.G. eventually freed herself and became suspicious. S.G. reached out to the real S.P. and discovered the deception. Kelso-Christy was charged with burglary—i.e., the unlawful entry of an occupied building with an intent to commit a felony. In Kelso-Christy’s case, the alleged felony was sexual assault, which state law called sexual abuse. Kelso-Christy moved to dismiss the charge on the ground that S.G. had consented to the act of intercourse. Kelso-Christy argued that his deception qualified as only fraud in the inducement of an action, which did not negate S.G.’s consent to the act itself. The trial court denied the motion. Kelso-Christy was convicted, and he appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cady, C.J.)
Dissent (Wiggins, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 905,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,100 briefs, keyed to 995 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
