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

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

D has known for more than a decade that he is infected HIV. D had sexual intercourse with two females, M.K. and E.Z. At the time, D was being treated to lower the number of HIV particles in his blood, which is measured by a 'viral load' test. A February 2005 viral load test had revealed 11,700 parts per milliliter, which was characterized as a medium level of the virus. Prior to that time, D had consistently measured very low levels of HIV, and, accordingly, D was prescribed a new medication. The next viral load test occurred in November 2005, after the incidents of sexual intercourse. The result was a viral load level of less than the minimum which could be measured, i.e., less than 50 parts per milliliter. D engaged in sexual intercourse with M.K. on or about October 17, 2005, and he engaged in sexual intercourse with E.Z. between October 1, 2005, and October 30, 2005. D defended on the basis that the State had failed to establish that HIV is always a life-threatening disease; that he had actually exposed the victims to the disease because of the lack of evidence that bodily fluids were exchanged during intercourse; or that he had the specific intent to expose his sexual partners to HIV. D was found guilty on both counts and appealed.

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

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