Connecticut jury awards $638K in disabled S&M case

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By DAVE COLLINS, Associated Press


HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — A jury has awarded about $638,000 to a woman who sued a man she said had a sadomasochistic sexual relationship with her adult daughter in a case that led to a state Supreme Court ruling on whether mentally ill people can consent to sex.

Mary Kortner, of Greenwich, filed a civil sexual battery and assault lawsuit in 2006 against Craig Martise, a married father of four from the same town, saying her daughter wasn't able to consent to an abusive sexual relationship with him in 2003 because of her mental condition.

Martise said Caroline Kendall Kortner was able to consent, and he was never criminally charged.

In 2009, a jury found in favor of Martise. In June, the state Supreme Court overturned that verdict and ordered a new trial, which resulted in a new Stamford Superior Court jury finding in favor of Mary Kortner on Thursday.

Kortner's daughter, known as Kendall, died in 2010 at age 39 from an undisclosed illness. She was diagnosed with clinical depression, borderline personality disorder, bulimia and anorexia, and she twice tried to commit suicide, according to court documents. She also in 2001 had a stroke that left her partially paralyzed from the waist down, court records say.

"This case is important because it sends a message ... to men who prey on women," said Kortner's lawyer, Christopher Burdett. "People who do the kinds of things Martise did have to be made to answer to it, and the community needs to express outrage."

Kortner said her daughter and Martise met online and that he used his intellect "to bully a person who was of compromised judgment." She called it a "long, tragic story."

"I don't have the words to tell you how grateful I was to have a plaintiff's verdict come in," Kortner said. "My heart is at ease after getting justice for my daughter."

Martise didn't return a phone message Tuesday. His lawyer, Philip Russell, said he plans to ask the trial judge to overturn the verdict or reduce the award and then, based on the judge's rulings, consider appealing the verdict to a higher court.

"We were somewhat puzzled and disappointed by the outcome," Russell said. "Craig's a great guy. Unfortunately, like many things that become media sensations, he'll be pilloried before his side gets told."

A probate court ruled in 1994 that Kendall Kortner couldn't manage her own affairs and appointed her mother as her conservator.

In Mary Kortner's appeal of the first jury verdict, the state Supreme Court ruled that people don't necessarily give up their ability to consent to sex, including sadomasochistic encounters, when they are placed under the legal conservatorship of others. The court also said it is up to juries to decide if people are able to consent to sex.

The Supreme Court ordered a new trial because a letter Kendall Kortner purportedly wrote in 2003 about unwanted sexual advances by another man was mistakenly given to the jury for deliberations despite not having been properly admitted into evidence.

Lawyers in the case had said they couldn't recall any legal precedents in the country on whether mentally ill people can consent to sex or sadomasochism.

[RBP]

Lot of moving parts here.... and some not moving apparently, but I digress.

What is the money for? Basically a civil penalty for a statutory rape based on mental status? But how was she damaged?

[FBD]

What's the money for? Because Mary Kortner had a tough time raising a disabled daughter and felt she deserved some compensation, that's just about all the money is for.

What's jacked up here is that the letter shouldnt have been seen by the jury, yes...but given what was in the letter, I dont understand how that is cause for: (2) the submission of that document to the jury constituted reversible error. Remanded for a new trial.

And in an entirely new trial where she's magically awarded all this money? get that bullshit out of here. I dont see anything in what I've read that should have caused this case to go the other way, I dont get it.


MARY H. KORTNER, AS CONSERVATOR OF THE PERSON OF CAROLINE KENDALL KORTNER v. CRAIG L. MARTISE, SC 18793

Judicial District of Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford



Torts; Conservatorship; Whether a Conserved Person has the Capacity to Consent to a Sadomasochistic Sexual Relationship. The plaintiff is the mother of Kendall Kortner, who died shortly after the trial in this case concluded. The plaintiff was appointed the conservator of her daughter's person in 1994, when Kendall was twenty-four. She brought this action in her capacity as conservator, alleging that the defendant was liable for sexual battery, civil assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, a man that Kendall met on the Internet, had engaged in a degrading sadomasochistic sexual relationship with her adult daughter. Central to the plaintiff's claims was the allegation that, due to Kendall's mental disabilities—including clinical depression, borderline personality disorder, bulimia and anorexia—she was unable to consent to what the plaintiff characterized as the defendant's mistreatment and abuse. The defendant asserted as a special defense that Kendall was an adult capable of making intelligent choices in matters relating to sex and that she had consented to any sexual contact she had with him. The plaintiff moved to strike the consent defense and to preclude the defendant from raising the issue of consent at trial. The trial court denied her motions, ruling that Kendall's conserved status did not preclude the defendant from presenting evidence of consent and that it should be left to the jury to determine whether Kendall had the ability to consent. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, indicating, by way of its responses to interrogatories, that, while the defendant had in fact engaged in a sadomasochistic sexual relationship with Kendall, the plaintiff had failed to prove that Kendall did not have the capacity to consent to the sex acts. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment on the jury's verdict, claiming that the trial court wrongly permitted the issue of consent to reach the jury because the probate court's appointment of the plaintiff as the conservator of Kendall's person constituted a judicial determination that Kendall was incompetent and therefore incapable of consenting to sexual conduct. The plaintiff also argues that, as a matter of public policy, one cannot be deemed to have consented to sexual abuse and degradation.



Martise's attorney, Phillip Russell, said Tuesday he plans to request Judge Kenneth Povodator, who heard the case, consider reducing the award and setting aside the verdict. Depending on the response, an appeal of the verdict could be filed in higher court.

The new result was the product of a jury made sentimental by Caroline Kendall Kortner's passing, said Russell.

"I believe it was a play on the jury's sympathies, nothing more and nothing less," he said. "In the last trial that's why they found for Craig, but this time I felt they had great sympathy for the dead girl and the dead girl's mother."




...


from the dissenting opinion, (wrt the improperly introduced evidence)


It is apparent from the issues in dispute
and the other evidence in the case that this exhibit
could not have had even the most marginal effect on
the jury’s deliberations.

so yeah, played on the jury's sympathies.

[deebakes]

facts dont add up on this one :idk:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Sounds like BS to me

[FBD]

welcome to ct