Remember to read the full cases. Answer one question from each case. It should be less than a page double-space. No need for title page.
Case #1
State v. Rusk (1981)
Nature of the Case - Edward Rusk was found guilty of second degree rape and assault and convicted by a jury. Rusk appealed his case in the Maryland Court of Appeals in which the court reversed his conviction citing insufficient evidence from the plaintiff. The court of appeals granted certiorari to review if their ruling of insufficient evidence was adequate for the case.
Facts of the Case - Defendant Edward Rusk was found guilty of second degree rape of Pat.. Edward Rusk was at a bar late one night when he approached two women, Pat and Terry, and began to converse with them at the bar. After the two women said they were ready to go back home, Rusk asked Pat if he could get a ride back home to his apartment. After arriving at Rusk's apartment, Rusk asked Pat to join him and his apartment; and Pat testified that she declined the offer to which it prompted Rusk to remove the keys from the ignition, and feeling threatened Pat decided to join Rusk to his apartment. Pat additionally testified that Rusk pulled her into his bedroom and began to undress her. Feeling threatened for her life, Pat asked Rusk “if I do what you want, will you let me go without killing me” to which Rusk replied with “yes”. After having intercourse, Pat left the apartment and immediately reported the incident to the police, and Pat was convicted of second degree rape. Rusk appealed the case, testifying that he believed their intercourse was consensual. The Maryland Court of Appeals reversed the conviction on the grounds insufficient evidence to determine resistance from the plaintiff
Issue - Did the Maryland Court of Appeals properly reverse the conviction, and apply the principle of insufficient evidence in the proper manner?
Holding - In a 4-3 decision, the Court of Appeals reinstated the original conviction and charged Rusk with second degree rape and assualt
Reasons: In the majority opinion, Chief Judge Murphy wrote that “the victim's fear be reasonably grounded in order to obviate the need for either proof of actual force on the part of the assailant or physical resistance on the part of the victim.” Additionally, Murphy acknowledge that the jury, in the trial court, should be able to identify and reasonably conclude that the “elements of rape” was established given the victim was restrained out of fear of violence.
Rule: The reasonableness of the victim’s fear to determine that the original conviction of rape should upheld in the court of law.
Philosophical questions:
1. In the dissenting opinion, Judge Cole addressed that “simply being scared’ should not transform consenting intercourse into forceful rape. To what certain extent should words/emotions hold merit in the court of law?
2. Rusk, in his appeal, stated that he believed their intercourse was consensual. Does Rusk have any merit in believing their intercourse was a “reasonable mistake”, and if it was a “reasonable mistake” should he still be convicted of rape?
3. Is criminal negligence enough of a criminal mental state of mind enough to convict a person of rape?
Case #2
Commonwealth v. Sherry (1982)
Nature of Case: In the trial court, the victim accused the three defendants with one charge of kidnapping and three charges of aggravated rape each. The defendants were each found guilty of one charge of rape and were sentenced to three to five years of prison with one year of parole. The case was brought to appellate court when the defendants accused the trial judge of committing multiple errors, including but not limited to denying their requests for both a finding of not guilty and mistrial and instructing the jury regarding the rape and not in the way requested by the defendants. They argued that there was no evidence of physical violence on the victim, which would be required for it to be legally considered rape, nor was there proof of her claims to kidnapping and rape. They claimed there to be a mistrial because the prosecutor instructed a witness to avoid using the word "drunk" when describing the victim's state the night of the party. They also accused the fresh hearsay to be inconsistent with the omitted testimony she recounted during a Rape Crisis Seminar. Since Cheryl Rowley testified that the victim had explained during this event her past experiences and close-calls with rape and sexual assault and how she was able to avoid certain things, they found her claims of being unable to physically protest inconsistent.
Facts: The victim was a nurse at the same Boston hospital as Sherry, who was a doctor and the host of the party in which the relevant events occurred. The victim did not know the other two defendants, Hussain and Lefkowitz, until the night of the party. She had spoken to Hussain and danced with both him and Lefkowitz at some time during the party. Sherry and Hussain had, at one point, pushed her and Lefkowitz into an unlit bathroom and shut the door until Lefkowitz told them to let her go. Later that night, Lefkowitz told the others he was heading to his home in Rockport, and the other two men carried the victim into his car despite her verbal protests. She did not physically protest because assumed they were all joking around and there was nothing sinister to be concerned about. Once they arrived to Lefkowitz's house, she asked to be driven back, but instead the men carried her into the house. Two of the men smoked marijuana before she was given a house tour. When they were in Lefkowitz's room, the men began to undress themselves and the victim despite her verbal protests. She became fearful but frozen as the defendants took turns having sex with her. She was driven back to her car the next morning.
Issue: Should it be required to have undeniable proof that the victim did not consent to the actions of the accused? Can the accused defend themselves based on claims of mistake of fact? Is evidence of force, threat, or physical injury required to prove a rape case?
Holding: No, lack of consent is enough and no reason has been found to justify resentencing the case. Mistake of fact is not a valid defense and there was sufficient evidence that the defendants had sexual intercourse with the victim forcefully and without consent.
Reasons: Among other reasons for their decision, the court argued that either threat or action of physical violence or lack of consent is required for a sexual assault case to be considered rape. Since the victim did not give consent, the lack of evidence regarding violence is not necessary. The court found no fault in the prosecutor's advice to not use conclusive or judgmental descriptions like "drunk" and the judge found the witness's account to be honest and ethical. Regarding the testimony of Rowley, the victim claimed she did not remember saying that at the seminar. The trial judge was within their right to use their discretion to determine this information as irrelevant and choose to exclude this evidence to avoid unfairness in the trial. Mistake of fact was not a valid defense in this case because the actions of the defendants could not have been described as a reasonable and honest mistake. There was no evidence that the victim willfully had sexual intercourse with the defendants.
Rule of Law: "The essence of the crime of rape, whether aggravated or unaggravated, is sexual intercourse with another compelled by force and against the victim's will or compelled by threat of bodily injury."
Link to full case details:
Questions:
1. "The defendants, on appeal, argue that mistake of fact negating criminal intent is a defense to the crime of rape." Do you think claims to mistake of fact, or mistakenly thinking a person gave consent to an act, are a valid defense to claims of rape?
2. The trial judge chose to exclude Rowley's testimony, through which the defendants accused the victim of being inconsistent, because there was no evidence that her possible lack of credibility in that case would be relevant to this case. "The trial judge, in his sound discretion, may exclude evidence if the danger of confusion, unfair prejudice, or undue consumption of time in trial of collateral issues outweighs the probative worth of the evidence offered." Do you think trial judges should have this power? Or should they be obligated to include all evidence regardless of these factors?
3. Assuming that Rowley's testimony is true, do you think it provides any concrete evidence that the victim could not have been raped because of these previous interactions?