Commonwealth v. Lopez
433 Mass. 722, 745 N.E.2d 961 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Massachusetts, a defendant's honest and reasonable mistake of fact regarding a victim's consent is not a valid defense to the crime of rape, because the offense does not require the prosecution to prove that the defendant knew of or intended to act without the victim's consent. Rape is a general intent crime, requiring only proof of sexual intercourse accomplished by force and against the victim's will.
Facts:
- The seventeen-year-old female victim met the defendant, Kenny Lopez, who offered to walk her home.
- Lopez led the victim into a secluded area in the woods, despite her stating she wanted to go home.
- Lopez began making unwanted sexual advances, including kissing the victim and touching her breasts.
- The victim verbally and physically resisted, repeatedly saying, 'No, I don’t want to do this' and pushing Lopez away.
- Lopez pushed the victim against a slate slab, used his legs to pin her down, and forcibly raped her.
- When the victim moved, Lopez became angry, turned her over, pushed her face into the slate, and raped her a second time.
- Lopez's defense at trial was that the victim was a willing and active participant who initiated the sexual activity.
Procedural Posture:
- Kenny Lopez was charged on two indictments for rape and one for indecent assault and battery.
- At the conclusion of his trial in a Massachusetts court of first instance, defense counsel requested a jury instruction on mistake of fact as to consent.
- The trial judge denied the request for the instruction.
- A jury convicted Lopez on all charges.
- Lopez applied for direct appellate review to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which is the state's highest court, and the court granted his application.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's honest and reasonable mistake of fact regarding a victim's consent negate the mental state required for the crime of rape in Massachusetts, thereby entitling the defendant to a mistake of fact jury instruction?
Opinions:
Majority - Spina, J.
No. A defendant's mistake of fact as to a victim's consent does not negate the mental state for rape in Massachusetts and does not entitle the defendant to a specific jury instruction on that theory. Rape is a general intent crime, and its elements are sexual intercourse accomplished by force and against the victim's will. The Massachusetts rape statute does not require the prosecution to prove the defendant possessed a specific intent to engage in nonconsensual intercourse or had actual knowledge of the victim's lack of consent. Because the defendant's mental state regarding consent is not a material element of the offense, a mistake about that fact cannot be a defense. The court reasoned that the element of force itself should negate any possible mistake as to consent and that recognizing such a defense could undermine the established rule that victims are not required to physically resist an attack.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Massachusetts' position within a minority of jurisdictions that do not recognize a mistake of fact defense in rape prosecutions. By defining rape as a general intent crime focused on the defendant's actions (use of force) and the victim's state of mind (lack of consent), the court deliberately keeps the defendant's subjective belief about consent out of the legal analysis. This precedent makes it significantly harder for defendants to argue they misinterpreted a victim's signals, placing the legal focus squarely on whether consent-in-fact existed. The ruling reinforces a victim-centric approach and prevents the defense from shifting the jury's focus from the defendant's forcible conduct to the victim's behavior.
Unlock the full brief for Commonwealth v. Lopez