Evidence of pain experienced during an act of attempted anal intercourse, in context, is capable of supporting an inference of penetration to some extent, even where the complainant uses the word 'attempt' to describe the act. A complainant's use of the word 'attempt' in lay terms does not preclude a finding of penetration where the word is not used in its legal sense. The failure of the prosecution to ask a direct question about penetration does not preclude the jury from drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence as a whole.
The full text is available to signed-in members.