University:
University of California, Berkeley
Course:
Law 200.2 | Civil Procedure for LL.M.Students
Academic year:

2020
Views:

35

Pages:

1
Author:

Edgar Rowe

Facts State v. Rusk Rusk and Pat met at a bar. Pat drove Rusk home, where he took her car keys, made her come upstairs, and raped her. Differences in testimonies regarding whether Pat was forced or not a. Rusk said she seemed reluctant mid-sex b. Pat said he had a look in his face that was threatening, he choked her, and she asked if he’d let her go without killing her if she followed his directions court of special appeals, sitting en banc, reversed, concluding that insufficient evidence of Rusk’s guilt had been shown. The Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari to consider whether the court of special appeals correctly applied the law. Issue: In a charge of rape, can the lack of consent element be established by proof of resistance or by proof that the victim failed to resist due to a genuine and reasonably grounded fear? Holding / Reasoning Due process requirements mandate that a criminal conviction can’t be obtained if the evidence doesn’t reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. a. But the reviewing court does not ask itself whether it believes that the evidence established guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Standard is actually: whether any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Lack of consent is generally established through proof that victim failed to resist because of fear a. Victim’s fear “includes, but is not necessarily limited to, a fear of death or serious bodily harm, or a fear so extreme as to preclude resistance, or a fear which would well nigh render her mind incapable of continuing to resist, or a fear that so overpower her that she does not dare resist” b. Victim’s fear must be genuine. Majority of jurisdictions require that the victim’s fear be reasonably grounded. This court reverses Rusk’s conviction. From Pat’s testimony, jury could’ve reasonably concluded that Pat’s fear was well-grounded (taking of car keys, fear of being killed until she submitted, crying, being choked, etc.) This court concludes that the jury could rationally find that the essential elements of seconddegree rape had been established and Rusk was guilty of that offense beyond a reasonable doubt Rule In a charge of rape, the lack of consent may be established by proof of resistance or by proof that the victim failed to resist due to a genuine and reasonably grounded fear. Dissent (Cole) Said Rusk didn’t demonstrate enough force to have truly forced Pat a. Tone of voice and odd look on his face isn’t convincing b. When he choked her, it was light enough that she could ask if he was going to kill her Isn’t convinced that Def did anything to prevent woman to flee, summon help, scream, or make physical resistance. Here, State “failed to prove the essential element of force beyond a reasonable doubt”