R v McCormack
[2011] SADC 56
•18 April 2011
DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v MCCORMACK
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2011] SADC 56
Reasons for the Verdict of His Honour Judge Soulio
18 April 2011
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES
Trial by Judge alone - accused charged with one count of aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence, and one count of rape.
Count 1 - Not Guilty
Count 2 - Not Guilty
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 ss 48, 170; Evidence Act 1929 ss 34L, 34M; Juries Act 1927 s 7, referred to.
R v Seigneur (2009) 103 SASR 2007; R v J, JA [2009] SASC 401; Bull v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 443; R v Wannan (2006) 94 SASR 521, considered.
R v MCCORMACK
[2011] SADC 56Background
P is a woman aged in her early 50’s. She alleges that she was at home on 24 December 2009 when the accused, who was known to her, entered her house without her permission, took her into her bedroom, and committed the offence of rape by inserting his fingers into her vagina. The accused denies the allegations. He elected for trial by judge alone pursuant to s 7 of the Juries Act 1927.
The Charges
The accused is charged with two offences, namely:
Count 1Aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence (s 170(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
The particulars alleged are that:
The accused on the 24th day of December 2009 at Unley, entered or remained in the place of residence of P as a trespasser, with the intention of committing an offence therein, namely an offence against the person.
Count 2 Rape (s 48 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
The particulars alleged are that:
The accused on the 24th day of December 2009 at Unley, had sexual intercourse with P, without her consent, by inserting his fingers into her vagina.
Directions
General Directions
The accused is presumed to be innocent unless and until his guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proving each element of any charge lies wholly on the prosecution. The accused is not obliged to prove anything. The accused, in putting forward a defence, is not required to prove the defence. The Crown must disprove it beyond reasonable doubt.
I remind myself that nothing short of proof beyond reasonable doubt is sufficient. It is not sufficient for the prosecution to show a suspicion of guilt or to show that the accused is probably guilty. I must be satisfied before I could convict the accused of any count on the Information that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt each element of the charge.
It follows that if I am left with a reasonable doubt as to the establishment of any element of a charge, then I must give the accused the benefit of that doubt and find him not guilty of the charge.
Separate Verdicts
The accused is charged with two separate counts. I must give separate consideration to each count, and not conclude that, simply because I might find the accused guilty or not guilty of one count, that the same verdict would necessarily be appropriate for the other count. Each must be considered separately in light of the evidence that applies to it.
Section 34M Evidence Act 1929
The Information upon which the accused was charged was first laid in this Court on 6 September 2010. Accordingly the provisions of s 34M of the Evidence Act apply[1] and evidence of the initial complaint was led from P in accordance with that section.
[1] R v Seigneur (2009) 103 SASR 2007.
The section relevantly provides:
(1) This section abolishes the common law relating to recent complaint in sexual cases.
Note—
See Kilby v The Queen (1973) 129 CLR 460; Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427
(3)Despite any other rule of law or practice, evidence related to the making of an initial complaint of an alleged sexual offence is admissible in a trial of a charge of the sexual offence.
Examples—
Evidence may be given by any person about—
• when the complaint was made and to whom;
• the content of the complaint;
• why the complaint was made to a particular person at a particular time;
• why the alleged victim did not make the complaint at an earlier time.
(4)If evidence referred to in subsection (3) is admitted in a trial, the judge must direct the jury that—
(a) it is admitted—
(i) to inform the jury as to how the allegation first came to light; and
(ii) as evidence of the consistency of conduct of the alleged victim; and
(b) it is not admitted as evidence of the truth of what was alleged; and
(c) there may be varied reasons why the alleged victim of a sexual offence has made a complaint of the offence at a particular time or to a particular person, but that, otherwise, it is a matter for the jury to determine the significance (if any) of the evidence in the circumstances of the particular case.
Evidence of the initial complaint is only admitted to inform me as to the way in which the allegations first came to light, and potentially as evidence of the consistency of the conduct of P and the reliability of her evidence.[2] It is not admitted as evidence of the truth of what the complainant alleged.
Recent Complaint
[2] R v J, JA [2009] SASC 401 per Duggan J at [93].
The making of a prompt complaint may be relevant in assessing the truth of the complainant’s evidence in court. It may indicate that her behaviour at the time of making the complaint was consistent with the occurrence of the events of which she gave evidence in court. It may also assist, in assessing her evidence, by having regard to the consistency or inconsistency of what the complainant said, with what she said in evidence. It also tends to negate any suggestion that the allegation was a later invention or concoction.
In assessing the weight to be given to the complaint and its impact upon the credibility and reliability of the complainant, the circumstances leading to the complaint and the context in which it was made must be borne in mind.
I need to decide whether I accept that she was genuinely distressed at the time of the making of the complaint, and the nature and extent of that distress. I bear in mind that signs of distress may result from any one of a number of possible causes; it may have been caused by the commission of the offence of rape as asserted, or to some other factor, or it may have been simulated.
Prior Inconsistent Statement
I also bear in mind when assessing the evidence of the complainant, that it was suggested that aspects of her evidence in court were inconsistent with her initial statement to police, which she later affirmed having made.
Witnesses
The Crown case comprised the evidence of P; P’s neighbour, Ms Newport, to whom the initial complaint was made; police officers, Mr Bonython, the investigating officer, and Mr Wynne; Ms King, a forensic scientist in relation to DNA evidence; Dr Collins, who medically examined the complainant at Yarrow Place; and certain agreed facts. The accused elected not to give evidence, as was his right.
The Elements of the Offences
Count 1 – Aggravated Serious Criminal Trespass in a Place of Residence
The offence alleged against the accused contains six elements, each of which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt before the accused can be found guilty.
First, the prosecution must prove that the accused entered or remained in a building. The second element of the offence is that the building in question is a place of residence. That was not disputed. The third element is that the accused entered or remained in the place of residence as a trespasser. The prosecution must prove that the accused entered or remained in the complainant’s house without her authority or permission.
The fourth element is that the accused knew that he was a trespasser or was recklessly indifferent as to that fact. In other words, he must be shown to have known that he did not have authority or permission from the complainant to enter or remain on the premises in the circumstances. In the alternative, he must have been recklessly indifferent as to that fact, that is, that he realised it was unlikely that he had authority or permission to enter or remain on the premises but entered or remained on the premises anyway.
The fifth element is that at the time of the trespass the accused intended to commit an offence against the person, and here it is alleged that the accused intended to rape the complainant. As to the sixth element, of aggravation, the prosecution must prove that at the time of entering the premises or whilst remaining on the premises, the accused knew that another person was lawfully in the place of residence or was reckless about whether anyone was there. An accused person is reckless in this context if he thinks that someone might be in the place of residence but enters or remains on the premises anyway.
Count 2 – Rape
The offence of rape is committed when a person performs an intentional act of sexual intercourse with another person, without the consent of that other person, knowing that the other person does not consent, or being recklessly indifferent as to whether or not that other person consents, and whether or not that other person offers physical resistance. The definition of ‘sexual intercourse’ relevantly includes the penetration of the vagina/labia majora of a woman by any part of the body of another person.
The Prosecution Evidence
It was common ground that the complainant had made a complaint of rape against the accused in 2006, and that that charge was not proceeded with. The court record from the Adelaide Magistrates Court was tendered by consent, and showed that on 23 February 2007 the accused entered into a restraining order for a period of 18 months, prohibiting him from contacting the complainant. The offences currently alleged against the accused are said to have occurred after the expiration of that period.
Evidence of the Complainant
The complainant is now 54 years old. She was born in the Philippines. She married an Australian citizen and came to live in Australia in 1979. During the early part of her evidence-in-chief it became apparent that while the complainant spoke reasonably fluent English, in the formal context of a court setting she was having difficulty understanding the questions being asked of her, and I was having difficulty understanding her responses. Arrangements were made for her to give the remainder of her evidence through the use of an interpreter.
She said that she had first met the accused in the year 2000. She had separated from her husband in the mid 90’s and at the time she met the accused she was living alone. She subsequently returned to share a house with her husband in 2004, although their relationship did not resume. Her husband died in May 2009.
She said that about two months after her husband’s death she had seen the accused in the kitchen of her house. She said “yes, he just comes to the house. Yes, he comes to the house. I told him off and when he comes to the house, to go away”. She said that when “I am in the kitchen sometimes I see him, I will be standing and he will be just behind me.”
The complainant’s evidence as to the charged offences was that, on 24 December 2009 she had been out shopping. After she returned home she laid down on the top of her bed to rest. She said that that was at about 6.10 or 6.20pm. The front door was locked and the windows were locked but the back door was open to allow fresh air to enter the house. She heard sounds of footsteps and got out of bed and went to the hallway. She saw the accused there. She said she could smell alcohol on his breath. He grabbed her around the waist and sat on the telephone chair and made her sit on his lap. He then carried her into the bedroom and put her down across the foot of the bed. She said he kissed her and then attempted to remove her underwear. She said she kicked him and twice asked him to leave but he did not leave. She said he kept pulling on her underwear which he removed to halfway down her legs. She said she told him to go away because she did not like him. He was holding her shoulder down with his left hand and had her legs up towards his shoulders. She told him that she was going to call Judy, her neighbour. She said that the accused responded that Judy would not hear her and he then put a towel, which was on the bed, over her face. He removed the towel when she complained. She then kicked him, and struck him with a TV remote control. She said that the accused digitally penetrated her vagina and she again told him to get out and he left the way he came in. She said that she took a chair and threw it at him, and that it struck his body. She said that she picked up the chair and threw it at him again when he was in the driveway near the carport and the chair landed near the front gate.
She gave evidence that after the accused left she attended at the house of her neighbour, Ms Newport, and told her about the sexual assault. She said “I told her that I wasn’t raped but there was an attempt to have sexual assault”. She said that she told Ms Newport about the digital penetration and about the towel being put over her face. She was asked “did you tell her who did this to you” and said “I can’t remember exactly what I said but this boy came into my house and he is a friend”.
The complainant’s neighbour then drove her to the Malvern police station, which was closed, and they returned to the neighbour’s house and the neighbour called police who subsequently attended.
Section 34L Application
Counsel for the accused made an application pursuant to s 34L of the Evidence Act 1929 to question the complainant regarding her previous sexual activities with the accused. Evidence of previous sexual activities between the accused and the complainant may be of substantial probative value as to whether consent may have been given, and as to the basis of a belief on the part of the accused to consent.[3] I was satisfied that the evidence was both of substantial probative value and would, in the circumstances, be likely to materially impair confidence in the reliability of the evidence of the complainant, and that its admission was required in the interests of justice and therefore granted permission to ask questions on that topic.[4]
Cross-examination of the Complainant
[3] Bull v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 443; R v Wannan (2006) 94 SASR 521.
[4] The test is pursuant to s 34L(2) Evidence Act 1929.
In cross-examination the complainant said that there may have been two occasions when the accused visited her house subsequent to her husband’s death, but prior to the date of the alleged offences. She said that on the first occasion she saw him at the back door, told him to go away, and he left.
She said that the second occasion was in about June or July 2009. She said he came into her kitchen; she thought she was singing at the time, and “he was just there”. She said that she asked him to leave and he said something about her breasts looking nice, and touched her breasts on the outside of her clothing. She said that she again told him to go away. She said the accused only stayed at her house for one or two minutes and there was no conversation between them other than that described.
Counsel for the accused suggested to the complainant that a number of topics of conversation were canvassed between the accused and the complainant during the visits by the accused to the complainant’s house in late 2009. She denied that such conversations had occurred, but acknowledged that the topics of conversation put to her by counsel for the accused had a factual basis.
The complainant agreed that when she gave her statement to police on the evening of the alleged offences she told police that the accused had attended at her house twice in the preceding week, and knocked on her window, but that she had just turned her lights off and nothing further occurred. She agreed that she had told the police officer that she had not seen the accused since her last case. She agreed that she did not mention to police the occasion on which she said the accused had attended, entered her kitchen, and touched her on the breasts.
Counsel for the accused then suggested to the complainant that on the occasion in September 2009 the accused was in her kitchen for about an hour. She responded “yes I remember”. He then suggested that the accused had been in the kitchen of her house on three occasions in 2009, prior to the date of the alleged offences and she said “yes”.
She eventually acceded to the proposition that there had been visits by the accused to her house in about September, October, and November 2009.
She said there had been an incident in October 2009, when the accused attended at her house and she had telephoned police and two police officers attended at her house, one male and one female. She was asked whether she had made a report and said “they did not have a notebook or something to write on at that time but I was told if he comes in again I will ring the police again.”
It was an agreed fact that there was no record of any complaint by the complainant, or visit by police, which could be said to relate to the incident described by the complainant, or to the report she said she had made.
It was put to the complainant that “having made a report in October, the statement to Sergeant Bonython that she had not seen the accused since her last case, was not correct.” She replied that she was confused and did not understand the statement. The proposition was again put to her and she said “I can’t remember and I’m not understanding anything.”
In cross-examination she was then asked about the day of the alleged offences. She was asked about her evidence that she had laid down on the bed at about 6.10 or 6.20pm and said that she thought she had gone to bed at about 5 or 5.40pm. She said that the apparent discrepancy was due to the fact that she had been talking (in evidence-in-chief) about the arrival of the accused at 6.10, or 6.20pm, rather than the time she had laid down. She said that the accused stayed no longer than 10 or 15 minutes and that as soon as he left she went next door to her neighbour’s house at about 6.40pm.
She was asked whether on the day of the alleged offences she had visited her neighbour prior to making the complaint at about 6.40pm. She said that she had visited at about 9am because she thought she was going to do some rose cutting at her neighbour’s house and attended later at about 10am but her neighbour said that she had a headache, so she left. She said that the next time she saw her neighbour was after the accused’s offending.
The complainant denied the suggestion that she had visited her neighbour at about 6pm, to take spring rolls and that she had stayed for about 15 minutes. She said “yes I was there but she wasn’t there. I think it was midday when I went. I am not sure.” It was then put to her that she again visited her neighbour at about 6.25pm on 24 December and took a bottle of champagne and stayed only for about three minutes. She said “I did bring a bottle of champagne but I can’t remember the time”. It was suggested to her that the accused visited her house at about 5.30pm and she agreed that that may be correct, but she could no longer remember the time.
It was again put to the complainant that she had visited her neighbour at 6pm to take spring rolls. She said that she thought she brought the spring rolls over between 2.30 and 3pm. She said that there was no one home and so she took the spring rolls to another neighbour. It was put to her that she left at about 6.15pm and then came back at 6.25pm with a bottle of champagne. She said “no that’s wrong”. She said that the champagne had been given to her neighbour on another occasion, not on 24 December 2009.
Prior Relationship with the Accused
Pursuant to leave granted, the complainant was asked about her interaction with the accused during the period between September 2000 and September 2004, when she was living alone, and during the period after she moved back to share the house with her ex-husband in September 2005.
I set out the relevant evidence in cross-examination relating to her previous sexual relationship with the accused.
QDuring that period, between September 2000 and September 2004, did you see the accused about twice a month.
AI don’t have reason to see him but he just comes when he wants to turn up in my house.
QWhen you did see him in that period of time did you have a sexual relationship with the accused.
AIt was more by force and he often forcing something into me.
QDo you accept that there was sex between the two of you in that period
AWhen the door is left open he just come straight in, but when the door is closed of course he cannot come in.
QYou moved, I think, back to Cleland Avenue in September 2004.
AI think it was in September 2005.
QYou moved back to save having to pay rent.
AMy ex-husband told me ‘You come back and live in the house again so you won’t be wasting your money paying rent’.
QWere there times when you were back living at 4 Cleland Avenue that Mr McCormack would come around and pick you up in his silver Holden Commodore.
AI have been pulled and forced to go into his car, he will pull my hand to go into his car.
QDo you accept that you would get in his car and go for a drive with him.
AYes, I have to because he is holding me.
QHow would it be that he would pick you up on these occasions.
AThere were times when sometimes I would come from work or I would be walking on the road and he would see me on the road. Or if I go or come from an appointment somewhere, he would see me on the road. When I am walking he will just see me but we have no previous agreement to see each other.
…
QAre you saying that every time he picked you up and took you for a drive it was against your will.
AWhen I was coming from work at the Chancellor Hotel he sat in his car and he forced me to get inside of the car.
QWhen do you say this was.
AGee when did I used to work? Maybe 2007.
QI suggest that you had, on occasions, sex in the car with Mr McCormack. I’m suggesting that this is back in 2004.
AYes. Not in Unley, yes.
QWell, I’m suggesting that you were in Unley, living there at the time, sometimes you had sex in the car with Mr McCormack.
ASometimes we just go for a short drive in the park, he will take me out against my will and we just go behind the Unley council and park there.
QSometimes you had sex in the backyard at Unley.
AYes, but it is all by force.
QSometimes in the shed at the house at Unley.
AYes, when I go outside I often see him on the side. It seems that he is just waiting for me to come outside.
QI think Mr McCormack in 2006 had a place at Mansfield Park.
AYes, I went there.
QYou went there with Mr McCormack on a number of occasions.
AMaybe only once.
QI suggest twice at least.
AI remember only once.
QAnd you had sex there.
AYes, but I was again forced to do it. I was so tied up – I was tied up with a neck tie.
QI suggest that you were a willing participant in the sexual encounters with Mr McCormack over the period from 2000 to 2006.
AAll the time I was forced to do sex with him because his sex is different.
QI suggest that you continued to have sex with Mr McCormack up until May of 2006.
AYes, it is all the time forced.
The Neighbour’s Evidence
Ms Newport, gave evidence that on 24 December 2009 she was at home and at about 6pm the complainant brought spring rolls to her, and they chatted for about 15 minutes. Ms Newport said that the complainant had told her that she thought someone had been coming around to the property when she wasn’t home. The complainant then left and about 10 minutes later, namely at about 6.25pm, returned with a bottle of champagne as a Christmas present. She said that the complainant appeared happy and upbeat, when she left at about 6.30pm.
Ms Newport said the complainant returned at about 7pm and was banging on the front door and screaming. She said that the complainant said “he tried to rape me and he put a towel over my face”. She described the complainant as appearing terrified, agitated and distressed.
She drove the complainant to the police station and said that on the way the complainant kept saying “he touched me everywhere. He said he liked my breasts, he liked me” and she said “I don’t like him”. She said that the complainant was repetitive and seemed to be in a state of shock. She said that the complainant repeated that she had told the accused that her neighbour Judy would hear her screaming and that he had put a towel over her face. Ms Newport also said that at one point the complainant had said to her “I don’t know why he didn’t put it in. Maybe he had already had his happiness.”
Dr Collins’ Evidence
Evidence was given by Dr Collins who examined the complainant at Yarrow Place. She observed a bruise on the complainant’s neck, and a bruise on her upper left thigh, which she said pre-dated the time of the alleged offence. She conducted a vaginal examination and observed no lacerations, bruises, or swelling. She said that the absence of injuries on genital examination neither refutes nor confirms allegations of recent sexual penetration.
Ms King’s Evidence
Ms King, a forensic scientist, gave evidence in relation to DNA testing. She said that there was no DNA material, unrelated to the complainant, recoverable from vaginal swabs. A tape lift of a towel recovered from the complainant’s bedroom contained DNA material matching the accused. There was no DNA material which matched the accused on the TV remote control.
The Evidence of Police Officers
The evidence of police officers related to formal matters including the taking of photographs, the gathering of items by the crime scene investigator, and the arrest of the accused. Police seized the towel and remote control to which I have referred. Police photographs show a chair in the front yard of the complainant’s premises, consistent with her account that she had thrown a chair at the accused and that it had landed in the front yard.
Prasad Direction
Following the completion of the prosecution case, counsel for the accused made the submission that I should give myself a Prasad direction in relation to Count 2, the count of rape. The application was refused.
The Defence Case
Election Not to Give Evidence
The accused elected not to give evidence. That was his legal right. I do not draw any adverse inference because he exercised that right. There may be many reasons he did not do so and I should not speculate about that. It is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
As I have said, the accused is presumed to be innocent unless and until his guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, and that the burden of proving each element of the charges lies wholly on the prosecution. The accused is not obliged to prove anything.
Motive
Counsel for the accused suggested that the allegations by the complainant were a means of getting back at, or setting up, the accused. That was put to the complainant who denied the suggestion. The accused bears no onus of proving a motive on the part of the complainant to make a false allegation.
Even if I reject the alleged motive for the complainant to lie, that does not, of itself, mean that I would find that the complainant was being truthful. The absence of a motive to lie does not strengthen the prosecution case, it is neutral. Lies can be told for no apparent reason. I must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant was telling the truth.
Findings and Conclusion
Although I am prepared to accept that the complainant was generally truthful, ultimately there were a number of aspects of her evidence which result in the conclusion that I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. They are as follows:
The Time of the Alleged Offences
The complainant said that she laid down at 5.30pm and thought the accused had arrived at about 6.10 or 6.20pm and she heard him in the hallway. She said he stayed for about 15 minutes and after the offences were committed she complained to her neighbour. She said that she had visited her neighbour at 9am and 10am for two different reasons, but denied visiting her neighbour to deliver spring rolls at about 6pm, and visiting again to deliver a bottle of champagne at 6.25pm. I accept Ms Newport as a careful witness who gave truthful and accurate evidence. Her evidence contradicted that of the complainant in relation to those two matters.
However some confusion about the occurrence of those visits and the timing of those visits, and indeed the time at which the complainant laid down to rest, and the time at which the accused visited, may not of itself be sufficient to cast doubt on the truthfulness and reliability of the complainant’s evidence in relation to the events giving rise to the actual charges.
Previous Visits by the Accused
The complainant’s statement to Detective Bonython, on the evening of the alleged offences, that she had not seen the accused since her last case, other than when he had knocked on her window on two occasions, is to be contrasted with her concession in cross-examination that he had visited her in her house, for up to an hour at a time on three occasions between September 2009 and the date of the alleged offences.
The Previous Relationship
The relationship between the accused and the complainant appears to be complex. Her evidence was that during the course of a sexual relationship spanning many years, she had on each occasion engaged in sexual activity with the accused against her will, gone with him in his car against her will, and had then engaged in sexual activities only as a result of force, does not seem credible and raises a doubt as to the extent to which I can rely on her evidence.
I accept the evidence of Ms King that a towel recovered from the complainant’s bedroom contained DNA material which matched that of the accused. I am prepared to accept the evidence of the complainant that the towel had been washed in the days prior to the alleged offence. I find that the accused did enter the complainant’s residence.
I also accept, based on the complainant’s evidence, and my acceptance that the accused did enter the house, that the accused knew that the complainant was inside the house, or was at least reckless as to the fact when he entered the house.
Ultimately, whilst I would be prepared to make a finding that there is a suspicion, and perhaps a strong suspicion, about the guilt of the accused the fact is that even on the complainant’s evidence, the accused had attended at her house and entered her house unannounced on many previous occasions.
There is a reasonable possibility that he had implied permission to do so, or at least believed he did. Similarly, I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant told the accused to leave the house, given the apparent tolerance of his previous lengthy visits which she originally had denied. Accordingly, I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the element of trespass is made out.
Nor can I be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that at the time of entering or remaining in the premises the accused intended to commit an offence against the person. Accordingly, I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of Count 1, the charge of aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence.
I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the elements of the offence of rape are proved. The DNA evidence leads me to find that the accused was present in the house and had contact with the towel later located in the complainant’s bedroom. The absence of any DNA on the vaginal swab does not of itself raise a doubt. However, having regard to the reservations I have about the complainant’s evidence for the reasons I have outlined, again while I have suspicions about the guilt of the accused I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty of Count 2, the charge of rape.
Verdict
As to Count 1 – Not guilty.
As to Count 2 – Not guilty.
3
7
1