of serious sexual assault.

Alan Rudolph Tate, of Cook's Hill Road, was silent as the verdict of ten-to-two was read out.

Tate was not guilty of a second charge of stealing his victim's gold earrings just after the incident took place.

The trial, which began last Monday, has spent several days piecing together events during the early morning hours of March 27, in which the complainant said she was raped several times by Tate in a darkened patch of grass just off the Railway Trail, near Sound View Road in Sandys Parish.

The 38-year-old woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, testified she had been driving along Bob's Valley Road just after midnight when she was flagged down by Tate, who asked her for a lift.

"At first, I was reluctant,'' she said. "But, as I knew his grandmother, I said yes.'' She continued to paint an ugly picture in which she was forced to drive to the clearing, nicknamed "Woodsies'', where she was forced to have sexual intercourse by being strangled and slapped.

After that, the complainant said she was forced to drive Tate back to where she had picked him up.

The prosecution had presented evidence from Police, who described evidence they later found at the scene, including a used condom and a cigarette box.

Dr. Basil Wilson, a Police doctor who examined the complainant hours after the incident, described bruises on the front section of the victim's neck and on the left side of her chest and small lacerations to her private parts.

One of the Police detectives involved in the investigation, P.c. Trent Lightbourne, described Tate's demeanour when he was arrested the next morning as "calm''. He added that Tate said: "I know what this is for''.

Tate's four Police statements were also read out to the court.

They indicated he had thought the complainant was a "whore'' when she approached him and that he "assumed'' she was consenting to the intercourse, despite her cries and protests.

On the witness stand, Tate explained her cries of: "No, I don't want this'' as "the usual sounds that a woman makes while having sex''.

Defence lawyer Patricia Harvey-Burch attempted to argue Tate had, or at least thought he had, the complainant's consent in the act of sex; that the complainant's credibility was lacking due to the fact that she admitted to lying earlier and to being an admitted crack/cocaine user; and thirdly, trying to show that the Police investigation into the incident had been "careless''.

In her closing address, Mrs. Harvey-Burch asked the jury to return a not-guilty verdict because "there are many areas of the prosecution's evidence that do not add up''.

Referring to the charge of stealing, Mrs. Harvey-Burch pointed to the fact that the complainant had said her attacker had "just snatched them out of my ears''.

Tate guilty of sex assault "Is she a bionic woman? Did this person's ears heal up instantly? I am sure that you will find this a deciding factor in bringing home a not guilty verdict,'' Mrs. Harvey-Burch said.

But Crown counsel Sandra Bacchus urged the jury to convict the defendant based on what she called "consistent, genuine testimony'' from a complainant "who had been violated in one of the most demeaning, degrading manners possible''.

She added that the complainant's testimony had "all the hallmarks of the truth'' and that the only just path was to find Tate guilty on both counts.

In addition, she pointed to medical evidence from Dr. Wilson which provided "professional opinion'' on what the complainant's condition was, as opposed to the evidence of defence witness P.c. Gladwina O'Mara who said she examined the complainant and "didn't find any evidence of physical injury at all''.

After a summary of evidence from Puisne Judge Philip Storr, the jury deliberated for about 90 minutes before returning with a verdict of guilty for the serious sexual assault.

Tate is scheduled to be sentenced on Friday morning.