State v. Russell

The state (plaintiff) charged Dan Russell (defendant) with raping his estranged wife, T.R., on July 1, 1994. Russell was represented by counsel at trial. The state’s evidence showed that T.R. had been physically abused by Russell in 1993, before the alleged rape. In one incident, Russell had beaten and choked T.R. to the point of unconsciousness, and T.R. had to be medivacked for treatment. In a second incident, T.R. was with a friend for a night out when Russell punched T.R., necessitating her hospital treatment. The couple separated in March 1994, and T.R. and her 12-year-old son Jeffrey stayed at a shelter. Russell continuously pursued and harassed T.R., violating a restraining order she had against him. Russell wrote T.R. numerous letters that referenced his desire to have sex with her or, if she refused, to rape her. On July 1, 1994, T.R. and Jeffrey were walking by the shelter, and Russell saw them. The threesome went out to eat, and afterward, T.R. walked with Russell to his hotel room. Russell gave Jeffrey some money to play video games, and according to T.R., Russell raped her when they were alone. According to Russell, T.R. consented to sex with him but she felt guilty because her counselors did not want her to have sex with him. Russell later wrote T.R. a note apologizing for “forc[ing]” her to have sex with him. The state introduced evidence of the prior acts of domestic violence. Russell’s counsel did not rebut the prior acts, but argued instead that these acts did not show that T.R. was raped on July 1. Russell’s counsel also highlighted T.R.’s motivations to lie about being raped. The jury convicted Russell of sexual assault, which was affirmed on appeal. Thereafter, Russell petitioned for relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming that his trial lawyer should have rebutted the prior acts of domestic violence. The trial court denied Russell’s petition, and Russell appealed.