The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Is It "Abuse of Corpse" to Have Sex on Mattress That Partly Covers Your Ex-Girlfriend's Dead Body?
One might have hoped this question would never have come up .... [UPDATE: Commenter QuantumBoxCat adds, "Worst threesome ever."]
From Wednesday's opinion in State v. Howard, by Judge Robyn Aoyagi:
In March 2019, N died of an accidental drug overdose in the bedroom of her apartment. At the time of her death, N was dating defendant, and he was living in the apartment. Another woman, S, was also staying there temporarily. Defendant became sexually involved with S before N's death.
One morning, defendant discovered that N had died. Her body was on the bedroom floor between the bed and the wall. There is no contention that defendant played any role in N's death or that he moved her body.
Defendant concealed N's body, however, to delay the discovery of her death. He piled a large quantity of clothing on top of and around the body and placed four empty storage totes upside down on top of the clothing. He then rotated the bed's queensized mattress 90 degrees relative to the box spring, so that one end was lying atop the storage totes and somewhat raised.
When N's family was unable to reach her for two days, a group of relatives and friends came to the apartment to confront defendant as to N's whereabouts. That led to the police searching the apartment and finding N's body. The police had to move the mattress, the storage totes, and the clothing to find N's body.
During a police interview, defendant admitted that he found N dead and concealed her body. He also admitted to having sex with S on the bed after N's death. Defendant was charged with two counts of second-degree abuse of corpse, ORS 166.085 ….
Unfortunately, "Defendant was convicted of violating ORS 166.085(1)(a) in a trial in which everyone—the parties, the trial court, and the jury—misunderstood what the state needed to prove for defendant to be found guilty." Because of this, and presumably because of how the case was litigated on appeal, the court doesn't decide whether defendant's actions actually violated the law. ("It is debatable whether, correctly construed, ORS 166.085(1)(a) actually prohibits such conduct, i.e., whether concealing a corpse with such items is a form of physical mistreatment that meets the statutory definition of 'abuse' in ORS 166.075(2)." "It is possible that ORS 166.085(1)(a), correctly construed, did not actually prohibit defendant's conduct.") If you're curious, here are the relevant statutory provisions, as quoted by the court:
Regarding first-degree abuse of corpse, ORS 166.087 provides:
"(1) A person commits the crime of abuse of corpse in the first degree if the person:
"(a) Engages in sexual activity with a corpse or involving a corpse; or
"(b) Dismembers, mutilates, cuts or strikes a corpse.
"(2) Abuse of corpse in the first degree is a Class B felony."Regarding second-degree abuse of corpse, ORS 166.085 provides:
"(1) A person commits the crime of abuse of corpse in the second degree if, except as otherwise authorized by law, the person intentionally:
"(a) Abuses a corpse; or
"(b) Disinters, removes or carries away a corpse.
"(2) Abuse of corpse in the second degree is a Class C felony.
"(3) As used in this section and ORS 166.087, 'abuse of corpse' includes treatment of a corpse by any person in a manner not recognized by generally accepted standards of the community or treatment by a professional person in a manner not generally accepted as suitable practice by other members of the profession, as may be defined by rules applicable to the profession." …[T]he verb "abuse" in ORS 166.085(1)(a) is actually defined in a separate but related statute, ORS 166.075, that creates the crime of abuse of venerated objects. ORS 166.075(2) provides:
"As used in this section and ORS 166.085, 'abuse' means to deface, damage, defile or otherwise physically mistreat in a manner likely to outrage public sensibilities."
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It sure is icky. Too bad that’s not in the criminal code.
I’m not sure this is a common enough issue that it’s necessary to create a new law against it.
You don’t think having sex on a mattress with a corpse under it is common?
For druggies to do that?!?
During a police interview, defendant admitted that he found N dead and concealed her body. He also admitted to having sex with S on the bed after N’s death.
Also an object lesson in shutting the frak up and demanding your public defender. They’re not going to magically know you renewed your close social relationship with S on the bed after N’s death except for the fact that you told them. Just one in a series of excellent decisions made by this guy.
Newsflash: lots of people are stupid and act accordingly.
After the terrorists in the first World Trade Center bombing went back to get a refund from the rental car company from which they rented the van they used for the bomb, nothing surprises me.
But their subsequent product liability lawsuit against the van manufacturer was probably successful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOfqVjavpR4
Worst threesome ever.
You win the thread.
Agreed!
Does a dead person count?
It depends on US history and tradition.
HaHa!
Hey Now!!!!!!!!
(Snort!)
#winning
Of all the Democrat cities, Portland seems to have fallen the most and the fastest. Oakland and San Francisco are probably still worse off, but they had a big head start.
wut
“A person commits the crime of abuse of corpse in the first degree if the person … Dismembers, mutilates, cuts or strikes a corpse.”
We recently marked the anniversary of Mussolini’s death. I wonder if there was a corresponding provision of Italian law that was violated by the crowd that abused his body. I presume nobody was prosecuted.
“Abuse of a Corpse”??? thought this was about the Senescent Joe Re-erection Cam-pain
It’s of course very easy to gloss over this–he’s a sicko etc. etc. But this is the same crap that prosecutors did in the Novak v. City of Parma case.
The prosecutors should be disbarred for this.
What “crap” did the prosecutors do here, and what about it is similar to the Novak v. City of Parma case?
(You do realize that the convictions in this case were affirmed, albeit merged into one, right?)
The question is, does “(3) As used in… ORS 166.087, ‘abuse of corpse’ includes treatment of a corpse by any person in a manner not recognized by generally accepted standards of the community” apply.
If the prosecutor’s crap was endorsed by the judge that wouldn’t make it any less crap, so count me unconvinced by the alleged probative value of the conviction.
But on ordinary understanding I’d say the statute applies.
Agreed — but isn’t there some legal requirement to report an overdose death to the police? Or am I being too idealistic?
And as to “abuse of a corpse”, there *are* people sick enough to have sex with her after she died.
There is a joke of a Frenchman visiting a brothel…cut to punchline, “I thought she was English”.
A hole’s a hole
A quick search turns up the fact that three states —Hawaii, Washington and Wisconsin — impose a broad duty to report crimes to authorities. So I suppose a general duty to report overdose deaths COULD be imposed. But I don’t see that it is imposed anywhere, except on doctors.
This is about as risque as I have ever been here at the Conspiracy.
*Ahem*
(Without reading the post)
Is It “Abuse of Corpse” to Have Sex on Mattress That Partly Covers Your Ex-Girlfriend’s Dead Body?
Not if she was a more horrible lay when she was still alive.
#AndrewDiceClayOOOHHH! #corpsehumor
“… the court doesn’t decide whether defendant’s actions actually violated the law.” What *did* they decide? New trial? Case dismissed?
Defendant made the argument (in the trial court, where everyone misunderstood the law) that the law was unconstitutionally vague as applied to him. The trial court rejected that argument. Defendant made the same argument again on appeal.
The court of appeals decided that its correct course of action was to determine whether the law, as correctly understood, was or wasn’t unconstitutionally vague as applied to defendant’s actual historical actions. It determined that the (actual, understood-by-nobody) law was not vague as applied to defendant’s historical actions, and therefore the trial court was correct to deny the defendant’s motion. The trial court’s judgment is therefore left in place. (With an adjustment that isn’t relevant to this question.)
The court of appeals’ decision includes a fairly striking observation about legal “vagueness”:
It isn’t clear to me what the legal system thinks “vagueness” means, given that it doesn’t mean that it’s impossible to tell whether certain conduct is or isn’t prohibited by the law.