A Supreme Court jury yesterday found a man guilty of sexually assaulting his former wife.

The five-man, seven-woman panel also found the Pembroke Parish man guilty of entering the woman's dwelling without lawful excuse.

The vote was split nine to three on both counts after two hours of deliberation.

Neither the complainant nor the convicted man can be named for legal reasons.

But the complainant told the court she was sleeping in bed at her sister's house around 4 a.m. on July 1 last year.

She was awakened by the sound of her former husband opening her sliding glass door and entering her bedroom.

After a brief conversation she agreed to give the man a ride home in her car.

At the man's apartment he groped the woman's breasts, performed oral sex against her will, and forced sexual intercourse upon her.

The jury disregarded the earlier appeal of defence attorney Elizabeth Christopher to take note of "stark contradictions'' in the complainant's testimony.

Ms Christopher told the jury the allegation of sexual assault was easy to make, but very difficult to prove.

She pointed to the lack of independent corroboration from other witnesses regarding the assault.

Before leaving her home to drive the man to her apartment, the woman had multiple opportunities to escape or seek assistance from family members or the authorities, Ms Christopher argued.

"She said he was unwelcome in her house, but she never asked him to leave,'' she added.

"She says he made a lot of noise, but no-one heard.'' "Why not raise the alarm?'' Ms Christopher asked. "She left in a nightgown and underwear. Why not put on clothes?'' She also suggested the complainant felt guilty after being "caught out'' by her sister on the morning following the assault.

The complainant admitted she had been involved with her husband in an "on and off'' relationship for more than ten years after their divorce.

Ms Christopher said the lack of evidence of damage to the woman's clothing or body was inconsistent with her report of a struggle.

Inconsistencies between the woman's original statement and her later testimony were also used to suggest the complainant was "muddling up her story''.

But Crown counsel Charlene Scott maintained the defendant knowingly assaulted the woman in multiple ways.

Ms Scott also told the jury the defendant responded to the assault in a manner based on her life experiences.

She cautioned jurors not to imagine how each of them would react but to base their decision on what the complainant said.

Puisne Judge Norma Wade-Miller will sentence the man today.