Apr 22, 2024

Defendant found not guilty in rape case that involved alcohol

Posted Apr 22, 2024 4:00 PM

By CRISTINA JANNEY
Hays Post

A man accused of rape and criminal sodomy was found not guilty in Ellis County District Court on Friday.

The defendant, Michael “Mikey” Schmidt was originally charged with one count of rape and one count of aggravated criminal sodomy, which were filed by Robert A. Anderson Jr., Ellis County attorney, on Nov. 7, 2022.

Both charges alleged that Michael P. Schmidt committed sexual acts on or about March 17, 2021. The victim in the case alleged that she was incapable of giving consent due to the effects of alcoholic beverages or drugs.

She also alleged that her condition was known by or reasonably apparent to the defendant at the time.

An amended complaint was filed on April 8 in which the state alleged the same two charges but included alternative means under which count two was committed by the defendant. While only charged with two counts, because of the alternatives, the jury considered four counts.

A jury trial was conducted Tuesday through Friday in the Ellis County District Court in Hays.

The defendant, Michael “Mikey” Schmidt, was represented by Mark Hartman and Tricia Bath of Edmonds & Bath, Leawood. The Ellis County Attorney Robert A. Anderson Jr represented the State of Kansas. The judge presiding over the case was Thomas J. Drees, district court judge of the 23rd Judicial District.

“The State was never alleging that the defendant had committed a violent or forcible sexual crime. Perhaps this is an oversimplification, but this case was a ‘too drunk to consent’ case," Anderson said.

One of the main issues in dispute was whether the victim was incapable of consenting due to the effects of alcoholic beverages or drugs, Anderson said.

For that reason, the jury was tasked with giving meaning to the phrase "incapable of giving consent due to the effect of alcoholic beverage or drug" and then applying the facts to the standard they set, Anderson said.

Additionally, the jury was permitted to consider the defendant’s level of intoxication, in particular as it related to whether the victim's condition was known to him or whether the condition was reasonably apparent to him, Anderson said.