CC woman convicted on 1 count of abuse

27-year-old not guilty on 2nd count of forcing teen runaway to have sex

By Chris Baldus | cbaldus@charlescitypress.com

A Floyd County jury delivered a guilty verdict Thursday on one count of third-degree sexual abuse against Brittany Rae Beek, 27, of Charles City. Jurors found her not guilty on a second count, however.

The guilty verdict handed down was in regard to Beek performing a sexual act on a 15-year-old-girl who had run away from a Waverly treatment shelter May 10 with a 16-year-old acquaintance of Beek’s. Beek brought the two from Cedar Falls to her home after the 16-year-old girl contacted her via Facebook.

That night the trio watched the sexually charged movie “50 Shades of Grey” and Beek then performed sex acts on both the girls, according to their accusations.

The jury’s decision indicates that jurors believe Beek committed the acts on the 15-year-old, which was a statutory crime because of their ages. The other count of third-degree sexual abuse involving the 16-year-old required the jurors to believe that Beek committed the acts on her acquaintance against that girl’s will or by force.

The maximum penalty for a class C felony is up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. Presiding Judge Colleen Wieland did not immediately set a sentencing date.

The case against Beek was turned over to the jury at about 12:30 p.m. Thursday. Its verdict was in by about 4 p.m.

The prosecution and defense closing arguments were similar in that both attacked the credibility of Beek and the runaway girls, respectively.

Undisputed was that the girls, ages 16 and 15, ran away from Bremwood Residential Treatment Center in Waverly on May 10, and after their travels brought them to Cedar Falls, the 16-year-old contacted Beek. From there, the arguments diverged. Public Defender Nellie O’Mara told the jury that the girls changed their stories from the day they were returned to custody, May 11, to the day they took the witness stand, only Beek told the same story repeatedly. For example, the 16-year-old added that Beek had performed oral sex on her as well, an accusation that was not in her deposition, O’Mara said.

Ginbey said Beek had changed her story from the day she was first interviewed by Charles City Police to when she took the stand. The girls told consistent stories that corroborated each other despite having no time together to concoct a story after being taken back into custody, she said. After they were apprehended hiding in a Shell Rock cornfield, authorities took the 15 year old back to the shelter and the 16 year old was sent to a detention center.

Ginbey also stressed that Beek said in a police interview in May that she learned the girls were runaways on May 11 — after they stayed the night — and told them she was bringing them back, which angered them and led them to run away from Beek’s home before she could get a car. Then, at trial, Beek said she didn’t know they were runaways until after they left.

Ginbey said the 16 year-old contacted Beek because she knew Beek had sheltered runaways before.

Regarding DNA evidence linking Beek to a lesion on the 16-year-old’s abdomen, O’Mara said that she left Beek’s house on May 11 wearing one of Beek’s shirts. A button from the shirt could have caused the injury and transferred Beek’s DNA when the girl physically fought with an ex-boyfriend as he tried to turn the girls over to police. The boyfriend had picked up the girls from Beek’s home and drove them to Shell Rock where he contacted police and tried to restrain the girls, who broke away and ran into a cornfield.

Ginbey asked the jurors to take their common sense with them into deliberations while calling upon the lesion and other marks on the 16 year-old’s neck, as well as breast hickies. Ginbey called the button theory “nonsensical.”

Ginbey said the girls were trapped by Beek, who knew it.

“She knew she had the power and control through her body (size), her age, and she knew the girls were on the run,” Ginbey said. “So who were they going to tell? They’d get in trouble if they reported anything.”

The third day of trial began with the defense calling two witnesses to the stand. The first was a friend of Beek’s and then Beek herself. Beek’s testimony was the last before closing arguments.

Beek denied doing anything sexual with either of the girls, and she wasn’t surprised that they bolted May 11 because the 16 year-old had a history of ditching her when they got together in the year she had known her.

Beek and O’Mara worked to establish that the girls were on Beek’s cellphone throughout the night, including during the time of the alleged incidents. They went through a Google Chrome record of how and when her Android cellphone had been used the night in May. They detailed that the girls used the phone throughout the night accessing Facebook and YouTube at times before, during and after the time of the alleged incident. O’Mara had Beek read from the record more than a dozen specific times and tell what the phone was being used for, including whose Facebook pages were accessed.

In her cross examination, Ginbey referred to roughly half-hour gaps in the records. Beek answered, “Possibly, I hadn’t looked at it that closely.”

On the phone topic, Beek testified that she messaged the mother of the 16 year-old right away when the girl contacted her, but she didn’t hear back from her until the next day. The girls had her phone from the point after Beek picked them up until the next morning, so they might have responded to the mother, she said.

The mother had testified that Beek had contacted her by message more than once.

O’Mara in her closing said the girls were motivated to make up the story of sexual assault because they were apprehended, they “wanted the limelight off them,” and they were angry at Beek.