Booze v. State

Summary

The court affirmed Booze’s rape conviction, rejecting his as-applied vagueness challenge, constitutional sufficiency challenge, and two challenges to the jury instructions. It held that the rape statute incorporated the established common-law understanding that constructive force may be shown when intoxication temporarily eliminates the victim’s ability to consent, and that the evidence supported the conviction. The court also held that the challenged mistake-of-fact instruction was legally correct and that no specific-intent instruction was required for constructive force.