Prosecutors Drop Case Against John David Mahaffey, SMU Student Accused of Rape [Updated]

Thumbnail image for JohnDavidMahaffey.jpg
Mahaffey's mugshot.
The Dallas County District Attorney's office has dismissed its case against John David Mahaffey, the SMU student arrested in September and accused of forcing another male student to perform oral sex.

Prosecutors filed a motion to dismiss the case on March 14. The one-page request says, simply: "Upon review of all facts associated with this case by Assistant District Attorney Cresta Garland, it has been determined there is no probable cause to support an element of the offense." It was granted by the court the same day.

Mahaffey was one of two SMU students indicted by the Dallas County DA on charges of sexual assault this year. The other, Donald Samuel Cuba, is accused of raping a fellow student in a dorm room. Cuba's case is still open.

Mahaffey, a fourth-generation SMU student and prestigious Hunt Scholar, was arrested on Tuesday, September 25; SMU's Daily Campus broke the news. According to a crime alert issued by the school, a male student had reported being sexually assaulted twice the day before, once at the Sigma Phi Epsilon house in the 3000 block of SMU Boulevard and again in a parking garage at Daniel Road and Airline Drive.

The student told police that Mahaffey had forced him to perform oral sex at the Sigma Phi Epsilon house. There was little information on the second alleged assault.

The next day, with the student's permission, SMU police recorded a phone conversation between him and Mahaffey. In it, according to the arrest warrant affidavit obtained by the Dallas Morning News, the student told Mahaffey, "You know I did not want to do that."

"I know you didn't," Mahaffey is said to have replied. "But we have to say it was consensual or lawyers, parents, and the school will be involved."

We have calls in to Mahaffey's lawyer, Reed Prospere, as well as the DA's office, and will update if we hear back.

4:30 p.m.: Debbie Denmon, Director of Communications for the DA's office, sends over this statement:

New information came to light after the indictment and it lead our prosecutor, ADA Cresta Garland, to dismiss the case. Garland didn't believe a prosecution was viable, because we didn't have the evidence to show that what happened was not consensual - based on this new evidence. ADA Cresta Garland does not want to talk.


Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
17 comments
cgb1
cgb1

The charges were based on a questionable accusation and an over-hyped, one-sided excerpt of a secretly recorded conversation, which was easy to dissect when taken in its entirety. It was never published or excerpted publicly in its entirety. The accuser eventually perjured himself in front of the grand jury, unbeknownst to the jurors.  After the prosecution became aware, they decided not to pursue the case. There is other evidence that made the prosecution's case extremely difficult as well. The prosecution dropped the case because the accuser may not have been the real victim after all. It is NOT OK to falsely accuse ANYONE of a crime, regardless of their race, sexual orientation, political party, religious affiliation or because of his or her family's income.

garlandsucks
garlandsucks

being poor sucks! If your rich you can get out of damn near anything

halldecker
halldecker

Here's the elements of the crime.   I can't find any loophole;  a blowjob gotten by force,  with a fear of the pitcher harming the pitchee,  is a Sexual Assault.

§ 22.011. SEXUAL ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person: (1) intentionally or knowingly: (A) causes the penetration of the anus or sexual organ of another person by any means, without that person's consent; (B) causes the penetration of the mouth of another person by the sexual organ of the actor, without that person's consent; or (C) causes the sexual organ of another person, without that person's consent, to contact or penetrate the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor.

A sexual assault under Subsection (a)(1) is without the consent of the other person if: (1) the actor compels the other person to submit or participate by the use of physical force or violence; This is the classic forcible rape scenario. Prior law required the victim to resist and the force had to be such as would overcome “such earnest resistance as might be reasonably expected under the circumstances.” There is no requirement of any resistance in the current statute. (2) the actor compels the other person to submit or participate by threatening to use force or violence against the other person, and the other person believes that the actor has the present ability to execute the threat.

bstewart1987
bstewart1987

How does a frat guy force another guy to suck his dick. Sorry nothing is worth joining for that price.

Plus isn't that against the Bro-Code?

CogitoErgoSum
CogitoErgoSum topcommenter

Sounds as though because the "that" that Mahaffey said needed to be described as consensual wasn't explicitly described as being a sexual act, the prosecution has nothing solid to go on.

Steve
Steve

@halldecker I suppose the only "loophole" is that he is not guilty.

JustSaying
JustSaying

@bstewart1987 Thats what I was thinking. Well, not the bro-code part. Was this blowjob part of some sort of hazing that the dick sucker thought would get him into the frat? If so, toss the case. Thats free will head right there.

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

Around The Web

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...