This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

In April 2015, D created a fake Facebook profile of a man, S.P., who had attended his high school. Posing as S.P., D began to send Facebook messages to women who also attended school with S.P. The messages informed women that S.P.'s profile had been hacked and that he had created a new one. Then, D would attempt to solicit nude photographs or proposition the women for sex. On April 26, D sent one such Facebook message to S.G. The two began a conversation, as S.G. knew S.P. from high school. Posing as S.P., D gave S.G. his phone number and the two began texting. The conversation turned sexual in nature. D repeatedly asked S.G. to send him nude photographs of herself, which she ultimately did. D suggested the two have a sexual encounter wherein S.G. would be blindfolded and restrained in handcuffs. S.G. agreed and invited S.P. to her home. D instructed S.G. to blindfold herself and wait for his arrival, which she did. When D arrived, he did not say anything, quickly handcuffed S.G., and proceeded to have intercourse. Afterward, he immediately left S.G.'s home without undoing the blindfold or handcuffs. S.G. eventually freed herself and saw a text message from S.P. saying his brother was in the hospital and he could not stay. S.G. grew suspicious when S.P. stopped responding to text messages and the Facebook profile was no longer active. S.G. sent a message to the original S.P. Facebook account and determined that someone had been impersonating him. S.G. contacted the sheriff's office and reported her assault. S.G. repeatedly affirmed she only consented to an encounter with S.P., whom she knew personally, and never consented to any encounter with D. An investigation linked D's phone number to the one given to S.G., and a latent print matching D's left thumbprint was found on the condom wrapper used during the encounter. Officers searched D's home and found a list of women's names in his bedroom that included S.G.'s. D was charged with burglary in the first degree and sexual abuse in the third degree. P reduced the charges to only burglary in the second degree, and D agreed not to resist a ten-year prison sentence if he was found guilty. D filed a motion to dismiss the charge. D argued S.G. consented to the sex act, and any concealment of his true identity was mere fraud in the inducement. The district court overruled the motion. It concluded that S.G. only consented to have an encounter with S.P. The district court reasoned that consent to a sex act inherently requires knowledge of the actual identity of the partner. The court concluded that D's deception amounted to fraud in fact, which vitiated any prior consent given by S.G. D was found guilty of burglary in the second degree and that D entered the residence with the specific intent to commit sexual abuse. The district court sentenced D to ten years in prison and imposed a $1000 fine. D appealed. The court of appeals found S.G. consented to a sexual encounter with a specific former classmate and, instead, experienced an entirely different act-an act to which she plainly did not consent. D appealed. D argues his nefarious actions in arranging the encounter with S.G. did not vitiate her consent and that P failed to submit any evidence that he entered her house with the intent to commit sexual abuse.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.