Sexual battery charges against two Wakulla County men were dismissed when Wakulla Circuit Judge N. Sanders Sauls directed a judgment of acquittal, finding that there was insufficient evidence to support the charge.

The men, Andrew Haubrick and Justin Millians, had been charged with sexual battery on a woman they had been drinking with in February 2005. When the judge announced his decision, on Thursday, Jan. 21, after two full days of testimony in the trial, the men’s numerous friends and family in the courtroom gasped with joy.

“Thank you, your honor,” Millians’ attorney, Tony Bajoczky said as the judge granted the motion for a judgment of acquittal.

“Thank you, Jesus!” came a voice from the gallery.

Both Bajoczky and Haubrick’s attorney Mike Carter commented that they felt justice had been done with the acquittal of their clients.Assistant State Attorney Kathy Ray, who prosecuted the case, said she was disappointed with the result and had wanted – for the sake of the victim – for the matter to be decided by the jury.

Testimony indicated that Haubrick and Millians stopped by the woman’s house in Crawfordville on Feb. 25, 2005, and chatted with her. Haubrick had a bottle of Old Crow and they began drinking.

The victim testified that she had one drink with the men – but she blacked out and when she regained consciousness she was in the hospital emergency room. A friend who had plans with the victim that night arrived at the house as Haubrick and Millians were leaving. The friend reportedly found the victim unconscious in her bedroom, nude, and called the sheriff’s office to report a rape.

The initial investigation focused on the possibility that some drug had been slipped to the victim, but the state crime lab found nothing in tests on the victim’s blood or the cups and liquor bottles at the house. She did have a blood alcohol level of .235 and .238 at the hospital.

The crux of the case was consent. The victim said she did not consent to sex with the men, but she could remember nothing from the point she got up off the tailgate of Haubrick’s truck as he played the guitar and she headed inside her house to use the restroom.

Evidence submitted by the state to support the contention that a crime was committed included photos of bruises on the woman’s body, the report from emergency medical technicians that there was blood on her nose, and saliva on her brassiere that DNA testing definitively showed was from Haubrick.

The state wanted to introduce statements from Haubrick and Millians that Ray described as “confessions” and the defense referred to as “admissions” in interrogations with sheriff’s detectives.

Millians was asked in an interview with Detective John Zarate, “You will admit, though, that she was too drunk to totally tell you no,” to which Millians answered, “Yes sir, I will admit that.” But Millians added that they were all drunk.

Haubrick made similar statements in interviews with sheriff’s Capt. Bill Poole.

In a motion hearing held with the jury outside the courtroom, Bajoczky argued that there was no evidence connecting his client to any sexual activity with the woman except Millians’ own statements. Bajoczky argued that the interviews should not presented to the jury because, as a matter of law, the prosecution must have more evidence of an alleged crime than a defendant’s confession.

Carter argued that there had been absolutely nothing presented by the state that indicated that any sex between his client and the woman was not consensual.

After taking a break to study the applicable law and review the men’s statements, Judge Sauls returned with a determination that “These are not confessions. They do not confess to any criminal offense. They would have to be characterized as admissions,” he said, “but admissions to what?”

Sauls ruled that the statements would not be allowed in as evidence. Given the ruling, the state decided to rest its case and not put on any more witnesses. Bajoczky and Carter both made motions for acquittal. Ray was already packing her documents away, indicating she believed it was a foregone conclusion.

Sauls left and returned with his decision that there was insufficient evidence presented by the state on the issue of whether the victim had consented.

Later, after the jury was dismissed, Carter compared the case to a Greek tragedy in that all three people that night had, he said, shown a failure of character and lack of command over their actions – which he blamed on the alcohol.

Carter, who had retired his law practice last year except for this case, said he hoped the community would accept the two men and give them back their good reputation. “They made a mistake,” Carter said, “but did not in any way commit a crime.”

He noted that Haubrick, who had been a prison guard at Wakulla Correctional Institute, had lost his job as a result of the charges and been limited to working part-time pickup jobs. Carter said Haubrick had also delayed making a decision about whether to marry his girlfriend because of the uncertainty about his future – whether he might be sent to prison if found guilty.

Bajoczky was more succinct, saying he felt “the case was wrongly mis-evaluated by the prosecutor.” Nevertheless, he added, “I am delighted with the outcome.”

The families gathered and prayed in a jury room outside the courtroom, giving praise to the Almighty for the result. Afterwards, when Haubrick walked by a reporter standing in the hallway, he said simply: “Deuteronomy 3:22.”

That Bible verse in the King James reads: “Ye shall not fear them: for the Lord your God he shall fight for you.”

Millians’ mother and stepfather, Tanya and Brian English, deferred comment to attorney Christopher Norris, who works at Bajoczky’s firm. “Mr. and Mrs. English are grateful for the outcome,” Norris said. “It’s been a long five years.”

In the state attorney’s office on the third floor of the courthouse, Ray commented that she was “just disappointed that a jury did not get to hear all the evidence.”