FELONY SEXUAL ASSAULT NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. W (DMC No. 14200) (Glendale Police Department DR No. 2014-XXXXXX): At the time of these allegations, Mr. W was a 49-year-old male who had been involved in a very tumultuous sexual affair with the complaining alleged victim for about 3 years. They has met online and developed a purely physical relationship from Mr. W’s point of view. Their somewhat tumultuous ‘adventurous” sexual relationship led them to engage in consensual sexual intercourse numerous times in various locales both in and out of doors. Eventually, the complaining victim was tired of a purely physical relationship and pressed Mr. W to become more emotionally involved. Mr. W was loath to do so, as the complaining alleged victim, in addition to her sexual proclivities, demonstrated significant emotional liability, or craziness, in lay terms.
Mr. W eventually became involved in a romantic relationship with another person and decided to terminate his relationship with the complaining victim. That termination did not go cleanly and the complaining victim continued to contact and harass Mr. W. Eventually the victim harassed Mr. W to the point of getting him to meet with her at his house. Her continual harassment had driven him to become quite upset. They both went into his house where they engaged in an argument. The argument turned from a loud, volatile confrontation into a heated passionate clench in which both the parties were kissing. That subsequently devolved into a session of very physical sex. At the end of that unusually physical sexual encounter between them, Mr. W told the complaining victim that they could not continue to do this as he was in a relationship.
They were apart for a couple of weeks, but then met up again to renew their sexual relationship on another two or three occasions. Their contact was then terminated for an extended period of time until months later the complaining alleged victim went to the police department and claimed that she had been Sexually Assaulted per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1406 during the encounter at Mr. W’s house. The complaining alleged victim gave multiple interviews to the police department including one videotaped forensic interview. The complaining alleged victim then agreed to cooperate in a “confrontation call” that was unsuccessful in reaching Mr. W. Subsequently, the investigating Detective contacted Mr. W directly and informed him that he was investigating an alleged Sexual Assault occurring on the date the two had sex in Mr. W’s house. He was understandably quite overwhelmed by this allegation and asked to contact the Detective at a later time.
Mr. W then came to our office and retained our services. At the meeting with Mr. W, we immediately reached out to the investigating Detective and advised him that we represent Mr. W. We followed that up with a written notice of representation to the Detective. We also sent a letter to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office advising them that if the grand jury was impaneled, Mr. W requested that they be informed that he was prepared to be present and testify. When the Detective got back to us he was loath to provide us with significant information on the case as it was still under investigation. We were able to confirm however that was an allegation of nonconsensual sex between the two parties. We were also able to confirm that the investigating Detective was well aware of the lengthy sexual history between the two parties.
Our Pre-Charge team decided that the best way to proceed was to have Mr. W immediately undergo a polygraph regarding the issue of any nonconsensual sexual activity. Our investigation further revealed that this allegation was made approximately a week after Mr. W became engaged to his new girlfriend. Apparently the complaining alleged victim was continuing to stalk Mr. W as she then found out who Mr. W’s fiancé was and sent a face book posting claiming that Mr. W was a “rapist.” Shortly after that allegation was made to the police and the police contacted Mr. W, Mr. W submitted to and successfully completed a polygraph indicating that he was being truthful when he said that he had never had sex with the complaining alleged victim without her consent.
We then drafted a detailed letter and provided it to the Detective and to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. The letter included specific information about the tumultuous and somewhat unconventional sexual relationship between the 2 parties. We specifically pointed out that Mr. W had always advised the complaining alleged victim that the relationship was only sexual in nature and would not turn into something more serious. We also advised them of the fact that after the alleged sexual assault, complaining victim had consensual sex with Mr. W on multiple occasions. We pointed out the coincidental timing in the alleged victim’s sexual assault allegations with regards to Mr. W’s engagement. We also pointed out the threatening and harassing contact from the reported victim to Mr. W’s fiancé. Lastly, we provided them the polygraph showing Mr. W being completely truthful when he stated that he never engaged in non-consensual sex with complaining alleged victim.
All of this information was included in the Detective’s final report on this matter. The Detective stated “at this point of the investigation there is nothing to support an arrest or submittal of charges.” The Detective also stated “this matter is being closed pending permission from [Mr. W’s] attorney to speak with him. At this point of the investigation there is no probable cause for arrest in this matter.”
