A Gore man accused of rape and sexual violation told police he would be surprised if a sample taken from the complainant contained his DNA.
But it did.
The man, who has interim name suppression, appeared on the first day of a jury trial in front of Judge Duncan Harvey in the Invercargill District Court yesterday.
He is charged with rape and sexual violation in Gore on February 15, 2019.
In an evidential police interview with Senior Constable David Loader played in court yesterday, the complainant said she had played social basketball, had a few drinks at the stadium, then moved with friends to Traffers pub after the games.
The defendant, who was known to the complainant, arrived outside the pub as the group was leaving to go to one of the player’s houses.
Later in the evening, the defendant arrived at the house the basketball players had gathered at to continue drinking.
The complainant said the party was fun — everyone was dancing and having a good time.
After missing out on a ride home with the sober driver, she went to bed on the couch with a blanket.
Her next memory was of waking up to someone on top of her, having sex with her.
She recognised the person as the defendant.
"I said ‘don’t, get off me’ .
"Then I pushed him, and I’m trying to push and push.
"Then I push him hard enough and he falls down [off the couch]."
It was when she sat up after she had pushed him off that she realised she was undressed from the waist down.
In opening yesterday, Crown lawyer Mike Brownlie said the defendant told police he had had a bit too much to drink so his memory of the night was not perfect.
He admitted kissing the complainant on the couch, but said he did not feel like they had intercourse.
"The defendant claimed that he would be surprised if the sample came back with his DNA," Mr Brownlie said.
Key evidence from an Institute of Environmental Science and Research scientist showed the sample taken from the complainant did contain the defendant’s DNA.
The case was about whether or not the complainant had agreed to the sexual acts performed on her.
"The Crown say the complainant did not consent and could not consent because she was not with it at the time."
