Commonwealth v. Mlinarich
542 A.2d 1335 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the purpose of rape under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3121, "forcible compulsion" requires an assault on the victim's will that renders their submission involuntary. A threat that compels a victim to make a deliberate, albeit repugnant, choice between submission and another undesirable consequence does not constitute forcible compulsion.
Facts:
- The complainant, a 14-year-old girl, was committed to a juvenile detention home after her brother filed criminal charges against her for stealing a ring.
- Joseph Mlinarich, a 63-year-old neighbor, and his wife arranged for the complainant to be released from the detention home into their custody.
- Beginning on the complainant's 14th birthday, while his wife was away, Mlinarich repeatedly fondled the girl over her protestations.
- Mlinarich escalated his conduct, ordering the complainant to disrobe for sexual intercourse.
- When the complainant refused, Mlinarich threatened to send her back to the juvenile detention home if she did not comply.
- Due to this threat, the complainant submitted to Mlinarich, who then attempted and eventually succeeded in raping her on multiple occasions.
- During these incidents, the complainant cried, screamed, expressed pain, and told Mlinarich she did not want to engage in the acts.
- After several weeks of abuse under the same recurring threat, the complainant fled Mlinarich's home and reported his conduct to her father.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph Mlinarich was charged with rape, attempted rape, and other offenses in the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County, a trial court.
- Following a trial, a jury found Mlinarich guilty on all charges.
- The trial court denied most of Mlinarich's post-verdict motions and sentenced him to an aggregate term of three to eight years' imprisonment.
- Mlinarich (as appellant) appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Superior Court, sitting en banc, reversed the convictions for rape and attempted rape.
- The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (as appellant) was granted an appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the state's highest court.
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 an adult guardian's threat to have his fourteen-year-old ward recommitted to a juvenile detention facility unless she submits to sexual intercourse constitute a "threat of forcible compulsion that would prevent resistance by a person of reasonable resolution" under the Pennsylvania rape statute?
Opinions:
Plurality - Nix, C.J.
No. A threat to recommit a ward to a juvenile detention facility does not constitute forcible compulsion because it presents the victim with a deliberate choice, rather than overwhelming her will to the point of involuntary submission. The term "forcible compulsion" was intended by the legislature to distinguish between an assault on the will and the forcing of a victim to make a choice, regardless of how repugnant the alternatives. Here, the complainant was left with a choice; therefore, her submission was the result of a deliberate, reasoned decision and was not an involuntary act. To expand the definition of forcible compulsion to include such threats would intrude upon the legislative scheme, which already accounts for the victim's age in other specific statutes like statutory rape. The statute's objective test—a threat that "would prevent resistance by a person of reasonable resolution"—focuses on compulsion that overbears the will, not on appeals to intellect or morals that lead to a difficult choice.
Dissenting - Larsen, J.
Yes. The threat to deprive a fourteen-year-old ward of her liberty and place her in physical confinement constitutes a threat of forcible compulsion sufficient to sustain a rape conviction. The plurality's distinction between an overwhelmed will and a "choice" is artificial and unjust, effectively blaming the victim for her submission to extreme psychological duress and a threat of physical confinement. "Forcible compulsion" includes moral and psychological force, and its sufficiency should be determined based on the totality of the circumstances, including the victim's age, her custodial relationship to the defendant, and the power imbalance. Precedent in Commonwealth v. Rhodes establishes that these subjective factors are critical to applying the objective "person of reasonable resolution" standard. To hold that this child voluntarily consented is a distortion of justice and a retreat to an era where the victim, not the perpetrator, was put on trial.
Dissenting - McDermott, J.
Yes. A threat of confinement is objectively a threat of forcible compulsion that a jury could find would overcome a person's reasonable resolve. The critical legal question is not whether the victim could make a choice, but whether the law should permit such a coercive choice to be imposed on another person at all. The purpose of the rape law is to prevent actors from using threats to gain an end they could not otherwise achieve. The threat of punishment via confinement, which the victim could believe the actor was capable of carrying out, is not a legitimate choice to offer, and a jury should be permitted to find that yielding to such a threat is not consent.
Analysis:
This decision narrowly construes "forcible compulsion," establishing a critical legal distinction between threats that overpower the will entirely and those that result in a coerced but "voluntary" choice. By finding that a threat of re-incarceration does not qualify as forcible compulsion, the court sets a high bar for what constitutes rape by threat, potentially limiting prosecutions in cases involving psychological coercion or abuse of authority where no immediate physical violence is threatened. The 3-3 split on the court, resulting in an affirmance of the lower appellate court's decision to overturn the conviction, highlights a deep judicial divide on the nature of consent and coercion, particularly concerning vulnerable victims. The case has significant implications for how courts and juries analyze consent in situations involving profound power imbalances.
