DINGENA

11 I. & N. Dec. 723
CourtBoard of Immigration Appeals
DecidedJuly 1, 1966
Docket1620
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 11 I. & N. Dec. 723 (DINGENA) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Board of Immigration Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
DINGENA, 11 I. & N. Dec. 723 (bia 1966).

Opinion

Interim Decision #1620

Maze ox DINGENA In Deportation Proceedings A-11168098 Deckled by Board July 21, 190 Conviction of the offense of sexual intercourse with a female child (under Id years of age) in violation of section q4.4.10(2) of Wisconsin Statutes is con- viction of a crime involving moral turpitude. CZERGE' Order: Act of 1952LSection 24.1(a) (4) t8 II S.C. 1251(a) (4)3—Convicted after entry of two crimes involving moral turpitude. • to wit: sexual intercourse with a child and burglary.

The case comes forward on appeal by the trial attorney from the order of the special inquiry officer dated February 2, 1966 that the proceedings be terminated. . The record relates to a native and citizen of the Netherlands, 20 years old, male, single, who last entered the United States at the part of New York in August 1964 as a, returning resident after an absence from April 1964. He had been originally admitted to the United States for permanent residence on February 10, 1960. He also had been absent from the United States from November to De- cember 1963. On the occasion of both absences he departed and re- turned with his parents. On April 5, 1965 the respondent was convicted in the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County at Milwaukee, Wisconsin of the offense of sex- ual intercourse with a child upon his plea of guilty of violation of section 944.10(2), Wisconsin statutes, was given a suspended sen- tence, and was placed on probation for two•years. On June 30,-1965 he was convicted upon his plea of guilty of burglary and was sen- tenced to an. indeterminate term of not more than three years. Pro- bation was revoked on the conviction of sexual intercourse with a child and he was sentenced to a concurrent term with the burglary conviction. The respondent testified that he was tried in the Circuit Court of Milwaukee, Wisconsin on September 10, 1965 for the offense . Interim Debision 3t1620 •

of burglary and was convicted and sentenced to serve not more than- three years in the WiscOnsin State Reformatory to run concurrently with the two sentences he received in the Circuit Court of Milwaukee, Wisconsin on June 30, 1965 (Ex. 4). However, the record of this last conviction has not been made a part of the record_ It has been established that the offense of sexual intercourse with a child and the offense of burglary for which he was convicted on June 30, 1965 did not arise out of the same scheme. The crime of burglary with intent to steal involves moral turpitude and does not require any discussion. The conviction of the respondent of the offense of intercourse with a female child has received extensive discussion by the special in- quiry officer. He concludes that the crime for which respondent was convicted was not rape; that "mans rea" is not an element of the offense; that no criminal intent is necessary to convict under the statute. The special inquiry officer has cited law review articles urg- ing a more liberal and realistic law regarding statutory rape of a consenting female beyond the age of puberty. He concludes that even if the• offense in the State of Michigan were statutory rape or even analogous to statutory rape, under the modern trend of court decisions because of the absence of the "mans rea" the offense of stat- utory rape would not involve moral turpitude. He likens the offense to which respondent was convicted to fornication under Wisconsin Statutes, Section 914.15, and observes that the crime of fornication does not involve' moral turpitude. The special inquiry officer con- cludes that the offense of sexual intercourse with a child does not involve moral turpitude. We shall review this finding because under the theory advanced by the special inquiry officer, it would appear that moral turpitude would not be involved in a violation of section 944.10(3), Wisconsin Statutes, with a female under 12 years, infra. The offense for which respondent was convicted is set forth in -

chapter 944 of the Wisconsin Statutes which is entitled "Crimes against Sexual Morality." Various headings are set forth under this heading : Sexual Crimes Without Consent which includes sec- tion 944.10 (rape) and 944.02 (sexual intercourse without consent) ; Sexual Crimes which involve children:. and Sexual Crimes between Adults with Consent which includes fornication (section 944.15), adultery (section 941.16), and sexual perversion (section 944.17). Section 914.10, which is listed under Sexual Crimes which Involve Children, provides as follows: . 04410 Sexual intercourse with a child. Ally male who has sexual inter- course with a female he knows is not his wife may be penalized as follows: (1) If the female is tinder the age of 18, fined not more than $1,000.00 or im• priaoned not more than five years or both; or

724 _Interim Decision 40620

(2) If the female is under me age of 10, and tile male is 19 yearn ,of aye or over, imprisoned not • more than 15 years; or (3) If the female is under the age of 12, and the male is 18 years of age or over, imprisoned not more than 30 years. The authenticated copy of the record .of complaint, conviction and sentence (Ex. 5) bets forth in the complaint thereof to which the respondent pleaded guilty, that: Defendant Matt Quirinus Dingena, being a male person 18 years or over, did feloniously have sexual intercourse with Coleen. Davy, a person of the age of 15 years, he the said Matt Quirinus Dingena, then and there well (mowing that the said Coleen Davy was not his wifA contrary to section 944.10(2) of the statutes. • The predecessor statute involving this offense, section 340.47,1925 Wisconsin Statutes, entitled "Carnal knowledge and abuse" provided, inter (ilia, as follows: Any person over 18 years of age who shall unlawfully and carnally know and abuse any female under the age of 18 years shall be punished by imprisonment in the State prison not more than thirty years nor Jess than • hue year, or by a One nut exceeding 9200; *

In alleging and proving the offense under section 340.47, supra, it was not necessary to allege and prove force and that the act was against the will of a female, as she was not capable in law of giving consent, the averment of force and-want of consent being immaterial and mere surplusag e.' The rule regardig the evidentiary effect of disclosure or failure to make disclosure of a rape does not apply where the element in re- spect of non-consent is supplied by the statute. 2 In criminal proceedings, in which the defendant was convicted of sexual intercourse of a child contrary to section 944.10(2), Wisconsin Statutes, consent or lack of it is not an element of the crime. 2 courts have long accepted the testimony . (if believed) Wiscon of the complainant as sufficient to sustain a conviction of rape or sex- ual intercourse with a child.' The age of consent as fixed by statutory provision in practically all of the United States varies; .generally, such statutes raise the common-law age at which a, female can Consent to sexual inter- course and, this statutory increase of the age of consent from the

1 State v. Eri.4;k8on, 45 Wis. 84. Loose v. State, 97 N.W. 526, 120 Avis. 115. *Gauthier v. State, 137 N.W. 2d 101, 28 Wis. 2d 412. 'Lanpbere v. State, 114 Wis. 193, 89 N.W. 128; Haley v. State, 207 Wis. 193, 240 N.W. 829; State v. Fischer. 228 Wis. 181, 279 N.W. 861; State v. Pries, 246 Win 521, 17 NM. 25 578; State v. Pickett, 259 Wis. 593, 49 N.W. 2d 712.

725 Interim Decision #1620 common-law age of ten years marks the only difference between statutory and common-law rape of a female child.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

JIMENEZ-CEDILLO
Board of Immigration Appeals, 2020
United States v. Estrada
349 F. Supp. 3d 830 (D. Arizona, 2018)
SILVA-TREVINO
Board of Immigration Appeals, 2016
United States v. Rubalcava Gonzales
179 F. Supp. 3d 917 (E.D. Missouri, 2016)
United States v. Gayle
996 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D. Connecticut, 2014)
Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder
558 F.3d 903 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
Mehboob v. Atty Gen USA
Third Circuit, 2008
Mehboob v. Attorney General of the United States
549 F.3d 272 (Third Circuit, 2008)
Quintero-Salazar v. Keisler
Ninth Circuit, 2007
TORRES-VARELA
23 I. & N. Dec. 78 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 2001)
LOPEZ-MEZA
22 I. & N. Dec. 1188 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1999)
MENDEZ
21 I. & N. Dec. 296 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 I. & N. Dec. 723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dingena-bia-1966.