Can someone be convicted of first degree sodomy with no physical evidence?

The legal definition of "Sodomy" is sexual contact that takes place between the penis of one person and the anus of another person. Any penetration...regardless of how slight...is sufficient to qualify as sodomy. However, Penal Code 286 PC, California's sodomy law, still punishes "unlawful acts of sodomy.? These include forcing someone to have sodomy against his/her will; OR acts of sodomy involving minor children. Penal Code 286 PC punishes a variety of conduct that California's sodomy law declares to be illegal. This includes acts of sodomy that you: engage in with a minor (that is, a person who is under 18) in violation of Penal Code 286(b)(1), Penal Code 286(b)(2), or Penal Code 286(c)(1), accomplish through means of force, violence, or fear, in violation of Penal Code 286(c)(2) or Penal Code 286(c)(3), In order to prove that you are guilty of sodomy under Penal Code 286 PC, the prosecutor must prove the following facts (otherwise known as "elements" of the crime): that you engaged in an act of sodomy with another person (any amount of penetration, regardless of how slight, constitutes sodomy...even if there is no ejaculation or skin-to-skin contact), and that you accomplished the act under one of the circumstances described above. Sodomy allegations are easy to make but difficult to prove. Penal Code 286 PC requires no proof of ejaculation...and only the slightest penetration. Thus, a person could claim that someone sodomized him/her with little to no physical evidence to support it. If there is a false allegation, the truthfulness of the victim and the defendant come into question. Therefore, it comes down to whom you believe. Some factors that are helpful in developing this belief are; has the victim accused anyone else of the crime or anyone of other crimes, has the defendant ever been charged with a like crime? A person can be found guilty with only the victim?s statements and without physical evidence. However, the jury must believe that the victim is telling the truth beyond a reasonable doubt.

They do not need anything more.? The issue will be whether the jury believes her beyond a reasonable doubt.? If the jury has doubts about her testimony including the fact that she waited so long to report it, then he should be found NOT guilty.

Her statement is direct evidence, not hearsay. The fact that there is no medical evidence and she waited two years makes it possible to win a trial. Do not assume he is innocent, let his lawyer do an investigation and tell him to give all the facts to his lawyer or he will not be able to advise him properly.

Depending on the credibility of the victim, her testimony alone may be enough for a conviction. There is not enough information to give you the odds of winning and any good attorney would not venture to make such a prediction. If you or your fiance has not done so already, I strongly suggest that you contact an experienced criminal defense attorney for a face-to-face consultation and give him/her all of the facts surrounding your fiance's case. (S)he would then be in a better position to analyze his case and advise you of his options.

Absolutely, especially if you forget you have the right to remain silent and cop yourself out. Remember, no matter what you say it will be twisted around and used against you later.