No. The court decided there wasn't enough proof for either crime. For kidnapping, he didn't seem to be planning to rape her when he first grabbed her at school. He only brought up sex much later, after she broke up with him. For rape, even though she said 'no' and was scared of him because of how he'd been in the past, he didn't use force or threaten her right then and there to make her have sex. Because she didn't physically resist, and that was similar to how she acted during their previous consensual sex, the court couldn't be sure it was forced this specific time.

No, the State did not show enough evidence for the kidnapping and rape charges. The evidence showed Brown didn't want to have sex, but not that Alston forced her or threatened her to make her have sex she didn't want on that specific day. Brown being generally scared of Alston because of past fights wasn't enough to prove he forced her to have sex this time.

Also, there wasn't strong evidence Alston planned to rape Brown when he first made her leave the school with him. Brown acted like she usually did in their relationship, so Alston had no reason to think he would have to force her. He only brought up sex after Brown said they were over.

The court says there's a difference between a victim being generally afraid because of the past and a defendant using force or threats to make the victim have sex against their will in that specific situation. Just because a victim doesn't physically fight back doesn't automatically mean it wasn't rape, but they do need to clearly show they didn't want to have sex, especially if they had sex with the defendant willingly before.

Since the State didn't prove Alston planned to rape Brown when he first made her go with him or that he forced or threatened her to make her have unwanted sex, the trial court should have dismissed both charges.

—held that "[a] lthough Brown's general fear of the defendant may have been justified by his conduct on prior occasions, absent evidence that the defendant used force or threats to overcome the will of the victim to resist the sexual intercourse alleged to have been rape, such general fear was not sufficient to show that the defendant used the force required to support a …

In Alston, our Supreme Court held that "the State's evidence was sufficient to show that the act of sexual intercourse in question was against [the victim's] will. It was not sufficient, however, to show that the act was accomplished by actual force or by a threat to use force unless she submitted to sexual intercourse."

—had engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with the defendant for six months prior to the rape alleged in that case.

In Alston, the victim "gave no physical resistance to the defendant [,]" and the Court held that there was no evidence of force.

Although inquiry in such cases still must be made into the victim's state of mind at the time of the alleged rape, the State ordinarily will be able to show the victim's lack of consent to the specific act charged only by evidence of statements or actions by the victim which were clearly communicated to the defendant and which expressly and unequivocally indicated the …

The defendant struck the victim several times when she refused to do what he wanted or to give him money.

Likewise, many raped women continue to have relationships with their abusers, relationships that may include subsequent sexual relations

—the court held that an adult victim's general fear of an attacker based on knowledge of prior acts of violence by the attacker was insufficient to show the force necessary to uphold a conviction of rape.

If, however, the evidence "is sufficient only to raise a suspicion or conjecture as to either the commission of the offense or the identity of the perpetrator, the motion to dismiss should be allowed. This is true even though the suspicion is strong."

—specifically set forth in statute;” spouses exempt only from statutory rape); GA. CODE ANN. § 16-6-1 (2)(Harrison 1982–2001)(“The fact that the person allegedly raped is the wife of the defendant shall not be a defense to a charge of rape "); § 16-6-2 (“The fact that the person allegedly sodomized is the spouse of a defendant shall not be a defense to a charge of …

No. The evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for either crime. For the kidnapping charge, the State failed to introduce substantial evidence that the defendant intended to rape Brown at the time he removed her from the school. All evidence indicated he only formed or expressed a sexual intent after she informed him their relationship was over, which occurred well after the initial removal. For the second-degree rape charge, the State failed to prove the element of force. While Brown testified she did not consent and was afraid, there was no evidence the defendant used force or threats on that day specifically to overcome her will to resist sexual intercourse; her fear was a generalized fear based on their prior relationship, which is insufficient to establish the element of force required for a rape conviction.

No, the State did not present substantial evidence to support the kidnapping and rape charges. While the evidence showed the sexual intercourse was against Brown's will, it did not demonstrate that Alston used force or threats of force to overcome Brown's will on that specific occasion. Brown's general fear of Alston based on prior incidents was insufficient to establish the element of force required for rape. 

Additionally, there was no substantial evidence that Alston intended to commit rape when he initially removed Brown from the school. Brown's conduct was consistent with their prior consensual relationship, giving Alston no reason to believe he would need to use force. It was only after Brown stated the relationship was over that Alston mentioned sex. 

The court distinguishes between a victim's general fear based on prior experiences and the use of force or threats to overcome the victim's will in the specific instance. The lack of physical resistance does not preclude a rape conviction, but the victim's lack of consent must still be clearly communicated, especially in cases involving a prior consensual relationship. 

Because the State failed to present substantial evidence of Alston's intent to commit rape upon removing Brown and his use of force or threats to overcome her will, the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss both charges.

State v. Alston

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