The closing arguments were made in the sexual assault trial of Kenneth Hasper.
The court heard that on June 23, 2016, Hasper and his then-wife went to the home of the complainant, his former sister-in-law, and her husband, for a meal and drinks in the back yard. After the complainant went to sleep, Hasper went into the house, and decided to go into the complainant’s bedroom to grope her breasts and proceeded to have sex with her.
The issue at the center of the case is not whether an assault took place, but the nature of the assault. The defense argued that while the defendant did go into the complainant’s room to “cop a feel” of her breasts, what happened after the initial assault was consensual, and that the complainant invited the defendant to have intercourse through her actions, which they say involved removing her pants and “wiggling her hips.” They argued that Hasper and her husband looked different enough that she should have been able to tell who was in the room.
The prosecution, meanwhile, took the position that consent cannot be given as a result of an earlier assault, and that the intercourse that happens, as a result, would be rape. They also argued that if the complainant did perform any actions which would be seen as an invitation to sex, it would be because she believed that it was her husband in the room with her, as it was dark, she was drunk, and she had expressed no previous interest in Hasper. The defendant was silent during the act, which the prosecution argued was an attempt to conceal his identity.
Earlier in the day Hasper himself was under cross examination, which made him visibly upset, shaking and sobbing while repeating that he did not know the answer to prosecutor Andrew Wyatt’s questions. This also came up in Wyatt’s closing arguments, as he argued that Hasper was not a credible witness, given that he quickly became less upset at the conclusion of the cross-examination. Wyatt also pointed out the discrepancy between Hasper’s initial statement to police officers and his testimony in court, as well as a similar discrepancy between that of his ex-wife’s initial statement and her testimony in court.
The judge reserved his decision until April 30. Depending on the result of that decision, sentencing will take place May 28.
