Rusk v. State
406 A.2d 624, 43 Md. App. 476 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a conviction of rape based on threat of force, the victim's apprehension of harm must be objectively reasonable. The defendant's acts and threats must be calculated to create in the mind of a reasonable person in the victim's circumstances a fear of imminent bodily harm serious enough to overcome their will to resist.
Facts:
- The prosecutrix, a 21-year-old woman, met Edward Salvatore Rusk at a bar.
- She agreed to give Rusk a ride to his home.
- Upon arriving, the prosecutrix parked the car but left the engine running, refusing Rusk's requests to come up to his apartment.
- Rusk then took the car keys from the ignition, got out, walked to her side of the car, opened the door, and said, 'Now will you come up?'
- Stating she was scared, the prosecutrix accompanied Rusk to his room.
- Inside the room, after he pulled her onto the bed, she asked, 'If I do what you want, will you let me go without killing me?'
- Rusk then put his hands on her throat and 'started lightly to choke' her, after which she asked if he would let her go if she complied, and he said yes.
- The prosecutrix then performed oral sex on Rusk, and they had sexual intercourse.
Procedural Posture:
- Edward Salvatore Rusk was tried in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, a trial court.
- A jury found Rusk guilty of second-degree rape and assault.
- The trial court sentenced Rusk to ten years for the rape and a concurrent five years for the assault.
- Rusk, as the appellant, appealed only his rape conviction to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, an intermediate appellate court. The State of Maryland was the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the evidence legally sufficient to support a conviction for second-degree rape where the victim's submission is based on a subjective fear that is not accompanied by overt physical violence or explicit threats of serious bodily harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Thompson, J.
No. The evidence was legally insufficient to support a conviction for second-degree rape. To satisfy the 'force or threat of force' element of rape, the victim's apprehension of harm must be objectively reasonable. The prosecutrix's stated fear, based on 'the look in his eyes,' the taking of her car keys, and a 'light choking,' did not constitute a threat reasonably calculated to create a fear of imminent bodily harm sufficient to overcome the will of a reasonable person to resist. While taking the keys may have prevented a vehicular escape, it did not prevent her from seeking help on foot, and the court found the other actions insufficient to meet the legal standard for force established in precedents like Hazel v. State.
Dissenting - Wilner, J.
Yes. The evidence was legally sufficient for a jury to find Rusk guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The majority improperly substituted its own judgment for that of the jury, which had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and assess their credibility. The reasonableness of the victim's fear is a question of fact for the jury. The circumstances—being alone with a man in a strange neighborhood late at night after he had taken her car keys, physically pulled her onto a bed, and placed his hands on her throat—were sufficient for a jury to conclude that her submission was the result of a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm, which is the legal equivalent of force.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a strict, objective 'reasonable apprehension' standard for the element of force in rape cases where no significant physical violence is used. It places a substantial burden on the prosecution, requiring evidence that the defendant's actions would cause a reasonable person, not just the specific victim, to fear serious harm. The case highlights a significant jurisprudential tension between deferring to jury findings on matters of fact (like the reasonableness of fear) and the appellate court's role in ensuring legal sufficiency of evidence. It has been widely criticized by legal scholars for perpetuating myths about rape and failing to account for the psychological realities of victims' responses to threats.
Unlock the full brief for Rusk v. State