Kortner v. Martise

Summary

The court held that any possible standing defect in the action was cured when the plaintiff was substituted as administratrix of the decedent’s estate. It reversed the judgment because an exhibit that had not been admitted into evidence was given to the jury, was relevant to the central issue of consent, and likely prejudiced the verdict. The court further held that a conserved person is not categorically incapable of consenting to sexual conduct, that capacity to consent is a jury question, and that the challenged instruction and interrogatories were proper.