Yes, they used enough force. The court explained that rape is about being forced to have sex against your will, and a victim doesn't have to get into a physical brawl to prove that. As long as she makes it clear she doesn't consent, that's what matters. The court looked at everything that happened—three men grabbing her, carrying her away despite her protests, and overpowering her in a room—and said that all of it together created a forceful and scary situation that took away her choice. The court upheld one rape conviction for each doctor but threw out the other two for each, since there was no proof that each doctor raped her three separate times.

Yes, there was enough evidence for the jury to decide that the doctors forced the nurse to have sex when she didn't want to. She doesn't have to physically fight back for it to be rape. Any way that she shows she really doesn't want to have sex is enough. 

The jury could look at everything that happened that night and how the actions of all three doctors made it hard for her to resist. Each doctor is guilty of raping her one time, but not three times each, because there wasn't evidence of that.

The doctors didn't have to actually know for sure that she didn't want to have sex. And if they thought wrong about whether she wanted to, they would have to prove they honestly and reasonably believed she consented. 

Rape is automatically included in the crime of aggravated rape. The judge explained the law to the jury well enough, even if he didn't use the exact words the defense wanted.

"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."

Absence of consent is an essential element of the crime of rape, whether aggravated or unaggravated.

"The test is whether, `[i] n order to convict [of the greater offense], all the elements of [the lesser offense] must be found, plus an additional aggravating factor.'"

—rape defendants not entitled to instruction requiring jury to find defendants had "actual knowledge" of victim's lack of consent; defense of mistake of fact, although not recognized in Massachusetts, "requires that the accused act in good faith and with reasonableness" [emphasis in original

General Laws c. 265, § 22 (b), fourth par., expressly states that rape is a lesser included offense of aggravated rape.

The issue is the extent to which the admission of an inconsistent statement would have affected the victim's credibility.

T] he jury is entitled to `consider the entire sequence of events and acts of [the] defendant [] as it affected the victim's ability to resist

Jury instructions are not required to use specific words as long as the ideas are adequately conveyed.

This statute follows the common-law definition of rape, and requires the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed (1) sexual intercourse (2) by force or threat of force and against the will of the victim.

As the judge noted in her order denying the motion for a new trial, the "gravamen of the [rape] charge, as set forth in the statute, is sexual penetration by force and against the [victim's] will or by threat of bodily injury."

Yes, sufficient evidence of force and lack of consent exists for a rape conviction. The essence of rape is sexual intercourse compelled by force and against the victim's will. The law does not require a victim to physically resist; any resistance demonstrating that her lack of consent is 'honest and real' is sufficient. The jury was entitled to consider the entire sequence of events, including the defendants forcibly taking the victim from the party, carrying her to a car and into a house despite her verbal protestations, and the intimidating presence of three men acting in unison. These circumstances were sufficient for a rational jury to find that the defendants overpowered the victim's will and that the intercourse was nonconsensual. However, while the evidence supported one conviction of rape for each defendant, there was no evidence of three separate acts of rape by each individual defendant. Therefore, each defendant's conviction on one count of rape is affirmed, but the convictions on the other two counts for each defendant are vacated as they are contrary to the weight of the evidence.

Yes, the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to find that the defendants had sexual intercourse with the victim by force and against her will. The victim's lack of physical resistance does not negate a finding of rape, because any resistance that demonstrates her lack of consent is sufficient. The jury could consider the entire sequence of events and the acts of all three defendants as it affected the victim's ability to resist. 

The convictions for unaggravated rape are affirmed for one charge per defendant and vacated for the other two charges per defendant, as there was no evidence of three separate rapes by each defendant. The jury is not required to find that the defendants had actual knowledge of the victim's lack of consent, and a mistake of fact defense would require the defendants to have acted in good faith and reasonably. 

Rape is a lesser included offense of aggravated rape, and the jury instructions adequately conveyed the law even if they did not use the exact wording requested by the defense.

Commonwealth v. Sherry

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot