Dixon v The State
The case of Dixon v. the State of Georgia raises questions regarding how mandatory sentencing laws treat teenagers who are caught engaging in consensual sex. Marcus Dixon at the time of the alleged crime was an 18-year-old high school Senior, an honor roll student and a talented football player with a full scholarship to play football at Vanderbilt University. ... On March 14, 2003, a grand jury indicted Dixon for rape, statutory rape, aggravated assault, false imprisonment, sexual battery, and aggravated child molestation. The State alleged Dixon forcibly raped the victim after school in a trailer on the campus of Pepperell High School in Rome, Georgia. At the time, the victim was less than three years younger than Dixon. ... On May 15, 2003, the jury convicted Dixon of statutory rape and aggravated child molestation, but acquitted him of all remaining charges. Although the jury acquitted him of rape, it did not mean that the activity was wholly consensual, it only meant that the State failed to prove the element of force beyond a reasonable doubt. Since the victim was under the legal age of 16 by just three months, the jury had no choice but to find Dixon guilty of these charges. On May 23, 2003, Dixon received the mandatory minimum sentence for aggravated child molestation of fifteen years; serve ten without eligibility of parole. He was the first teen in Georgia history to be sentenced under the state’s sexual predator statue. ... Dixon appealed his conviction to the Georgia Supreme Court by challenging the constitutionality of the aggravated child molestation statue. ... In May 2004, by a 4-3 vote, the Supreme Court reversed Marcus Dixon’s conviction for aggravated child molestation. ... The majority ruled that the General Assembly intended to punish Dixon’s conduct as a misdemeanor statutory rape rather than child molestation. The Court found that Georgia’s statutory rape and child molestation statues are part of a legislative framework aimed at protecting children from sexual exploitation and abuse, and that these statues must be construed together to determine how the Legislature intended to treat the conduct that occurred in Dixon’s case. ... In Dixon’s case, allowing the State to retain the discretion to prosecute the same conduct as either misdemeanor statutory rape or felony child molestation would contradict the intent of the amended law. ... Third, the misdemeanor statutory rape statue reflects the most recent legislative judgment regarding the appropriate punishment for Dixon’s conduct. ... Finally, given the conflict between the two statues, the rule of lenity requires that Dixon only be sentenced for the misdemeanor. ... The majority also found the State did not prove Dixon was guilty of simple child molestation which is a necessary element of aggravated child molestation. The State argued that the “aggravated” nature of Dixon’s conduct renders it a different crime altogether from child molestation, so the statutory construction arguments have no merit. The Court, however, stated that the elementary rules of statutory construction are applicable because the Legislature intended for Dixon’s conduct to be prosecuted as misdemeanor statutory rape rather than felony child molestation, either simple or aggravated. ... Thus, he concurred with the majority and reversed Dixon’s conviction for aggravated child molestation. He did not base his stance on the acquittal of Dixon on the rape and sexual battery charges. He believed the acquittal only represented the fact that the State failed to carry its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the sexual intercourse was against the will of the victim. The State did not establish that the sexual intercourse alleged by the victim was consensual, and that was not a conclusion that could be legally drawn from the jury’s verdict.