Connecticut Penetration & Typically --Statements of Non v. Smith “No” Consent Negligence (as described above) New Jersey Penetration Without Typically --Freely given In the Interest of Affirmative Negligence affirmative consent. MTS Consent --Silence/ambivalence not enough Washington, Sex with someone Strict Liability: Statutory Rape D.C. no mental state Under a Certain necessary Age No Resistance Necessary: Supreme Court of California, 1986 People v. Barnes, Complainant went to defendant’s to smoke marijuana. She told him she wanted to leave, he continued his advances. Reared back as if to hit her, flexed his muscles, wouldn’t open the door for her. They had sex and exchanged kisses, then she left immediately California Statute: Does not require evidence of resistance to convict of rape. Holding: That statute is valid. State needed to prove: Use of force or fear of bodily injury on the person against the will of the complainant. Open up time frame: pattern of threatening behavior prior to the act. Fear of bodily injury throughout the entire circumstance. Resistance could be considered evidence of use of force or fear, but not necessary. BUT: Physical Force is still required: used to determine lack of consent. Reasons behind shift: Scientific evidence that some victims respond by freezing, don’t resist. Especially complicated when it is acquaintance rape. No Force or Resistance: Just Non-Consent Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1989 State v. Smith, Woman meets man at bar, goes back to his house. He requests a kiss, and she said she didn’t want to do anything else. She spit on him, he told her he make it hard on her, or she could make it easy on herself.” They had sex. Statute: Does not require evidence of force or threat of force. Holding: No express force requirement means that the only act necessary is Actual awareness of non-consent is not necessary. If a reasonable person would have realized this is non-consent, it doesn’t matter what the defendant realizes. KTT: Even though this statute removes need for force, we still look to woman’s testimony for evidence: helps us to establish non-consent. Sex Without Consent New Jersey Supreme Court, 1992 In the Interest of MTS, 15-year-old claims that 17-year-old living in her house raped her. Sexual conduct without affirmative consent is sufficient. Force necessary to achieve sexual intercourse is sufficient. Defense: Need evidence of physical as well as force to engage in the act.
v. Smith Connecticut Penetration & Non Consent Typically Negligence --Statements of “No” (as described above) In the Interest of MTS New Jersey Penetration Without Affirmative Consent Typically Negligence --Freely given affirmative consent. --Silence/ambivalence not enough Statutory Rape Washington, D.C. Sex with someone Under a Certain Age Strict Liability: no mental state necessary No Resistance Necessary: People v. Barnes, Supreme Court of California, 1986 Complainant went to defendant’s to smoke marijuana. She told him she wanted to leave, he continued his advances. Reared back as if to hit her, flexed his muscles, wouldn’t open the door for her. They had sex and exchanged kisses, then she left immediately California Statute: Does not require evidence of resistance to convict of rape. Holding: That statute is valid. State needed to prove: Use of force or fear of bodily injury on the person against the will of the complainant. Open up time frame: pattern of threatening behavior prior to the act. Fear of bodily injury throughout the entire circumstance. Resistance could be considered evidence of use of force or fear, but not necessary. BUT: Physical Force is still required: used to determine lack of consent. Reasons behind shift: Scientific evidence that some victims respond by freezing, don’t resist. Especially complicated when it is acquaintance rape. No Force or Resistance: Just Non-Consent State v. Smith, Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1989 Woman meets man at bar, goes back to his house. He requests a kiss, and she said she didn’t want to do anything else. She spit on him, he told her he make it hard on her, or she could make it easy on herself.” They had sex. Statute: Does not require evidence of force or threat of force. Holding: No express force requirement means that the only act necessary is Actual awareness of non-consent is not necessary. If a reasonable person would have realized this is non-consent, it doesn’t matter what the defendant realizes. KTT: Even though this statute removes need for force, we still look to woman’s testimony for evidence: helps us to establish non-consent. Sex Without Consent In the Interest of MTS, New Jersey Supreme Court, 1992 15-year-old claims that 17-year-old living in her house raped her. Sexual conduct without affirmative consent is sufficient. Force necessary to achieve sexual intercourse is sufficient. Defense: Need evidence of physical as well as force to engage in the act.
Crim_TaylorThompson_2015.docx