The court found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed rape against the complainant. Penetration was established through the complainant's testimony, medical evidence, and corroborating witness accounts. Although the evidence of mental impairment was insufficient to displace consent on that ground alone, the prosecution demonstrated that the complainant did not consent to the act, and the circumstances indicated coercion. The identification of the appellant was reliable due to the length of time the complainant spent with him, her accurate description, and corroboration by other witnesses. The trial court's finding of guilt was upheld. However, the sentence was reduced from twenty to fifteen years, as the aggravating factor of mental impairment was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, though developmental challenges were present.