People v. M.D.
595 N.E.2d 702, 172 Ill. Dec. 341, 231 Ill. App. 3d 176 (1992)
Rule of Law:
A statutory scheme that provides a marital exemption for certain forcible sex offenses (criminal sexual abuse) but not for others (criminal sexual assault involving penetration) violates the equal protection and due process clauses because the classification is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
Facts:
- M.D. and L.D. were married and had two children.
- On the night of January 10, 1990, after an argument, M.D. returned home after midnight, accused L.D. of having an affair, choked her, and forced her to have sexual intercourse.
- A few hours later, after another argument about the frequency of sex, M.D. dragged L.D. upstairs, threatened her, and again engaged in forcible sexual intercourse.
- Around 5 a.m., M.D. returned to the bedroom, grabbed L.D.'s legs, and jammed his fist into her vagina twice, causing her to scream and bleed heavily.
- M.D. then forced L.D. into the shower with him.
- L.D. attempted to call the police, but M.D. took the phone from her.
- When police arrived after being dispatched by an operator, M.D. attempted to prevent L.D. from letting them in.
- Following his arrest, M.D. sent several letters to L.D. in which he admitted doing a 'terrible wrong' and asked her to help get the charges dropped.
Procedural Posture:
- M.D. was charged in a state trial court with one count of battery, two counts of criminal sexual assault, and three counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault.
- A jury found M.D. guilty of the aggravated criminal sexual assault count alleging he had placed his fist in L.D.’s vagina, and also found him guilty of battery.
- The jury acquitted M.D. of the other charges.
- The trial court sentenced M.D. to a 12-year term of imprisonment.
- M.D. (appellant) appealed his conviction to the appellate court, raising several issues including the constitutionality of the statutory sex offense scheme.
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 the Illinois statutory sex offense scheme, which provides a marital exemption for criminal sexual abuse but not for aggravated criminal sexual assault, violate the equal protection and due process clauses of the United States and Illinois Constitutions?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Dunn
Yes, the statutory scheme violates the equal protection and due process clauses. The marital exemption for certain forcible sex offenses is not rationally related to any legitimate governmental interest. Archaic justifications for the exemption, such as implied consent in marriage or the wife being the husband's property, have no place in modern society. Modern justifications, including promoting marital privacy or reconciliation, are equally untenable, as a forcible sexual assault destroys the marital relationship and a marriage license is not a license to assault one's spouse. However, the unconstitutional marital exemption is severable from the remainder of the sex offense statutes. The legislature would have enacted the prohibitions against sexual assault without the invalid exemption, meaning the statutes themselves remain valid. Because M.D. was convicted under a statute that did not contain the marital exemption, his conviction is affirmed.
Analysis:
This decision judicially invalidates a partial marital exemption for sex crimes, aligning Illinois with the modern legal trend that rejects outdated fictions about consent within marriage. The court's analysis firmly establishes that a person's bodily integrity is protected regardless of marital status. By holding the unconstitutional provision severable, the court effectively expanded the scope of criminal liability to spouses for all forcible sexual acts without striking down the entire statutory framework, thus avoiding a legislative void and ensuring continued protection for victims.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: People v. M.D. (1992)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"