In State v. Thompson,[1] the supreme court held that in sexual abuse and assault cases, distinct acts of penetration may support separate convictions when the penetrating body part or object changes, or when the penetrated orifice changes. Thompson was convicted of multiple counts of sexual abuse of a minor. The court of appeals merged separate convictions against Thompson for digital penetration, penile penetration, and penetration with an object, all of which took place over the same time period and involved the same orifice. The supreme court reversed the court of appeals’ decision to merge the three convictions. In determining whether the double jeopardy clause in the federal constitution required the convictions to merge, the court looked to legislative intent, and found that the statutory language demonstrated an intent to separately punish each distinct type of penetration. In determining whether the state double jeopardy clause required the convictions to merge, the court looked to the societal interests at stake in punishing the defendant. The sexual abuse and sexual assault statutes are aimed at punishing perpetrators for the harm inflicted on victims through unwanted sexual contact. Since each distinct type of penetration inflicts additional harm on the victim, each can support a separate conviction. In overturning the lower court’s holding that the three convictions merged, the court held that distinct acts of penetration can support separate convictions when either separate orifices are penetrated, or the same orifice is penetrated with different body parts or objects.
[1] 435 P.3d 947 (Alaska 2019).
