State v. Cowing
1906 Minn. LEXIS 391, 108 N.W. 851, 99 Minn. 123 (1906)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To sustain a conviction for rape where consent is at issue, the state must prove the victim's lack of consent through evidence of resistance that is proportionate to the circumstances. In ordinary cases, this requires resistance to the utmost of the victim's ability, unless such resistance is prevented by threats, fear of great bodily harm, or a situation rendering it useless.
Facts:
- The defendant, a 49-year-old farmer, went to the home of the complaining witness, a 23-year-old woman named Lizzie who lived on an adjacent farm.
- Lizzie was alone in the house at the time.
- Lizzie testified that the defendant grabbed her, dragged her from the kitchen to the front room despite her screams and struggles, and threw her onto a couch.
- She further testified that he choked her with one hand, used his other hand to push up her clothes, and then had sexual intercourse with her.
- Lizzie did not testify to any specific acts of physical resistance, such as using her legs or free hands, after she was thrown on the couch.
- The defendant claimed he and Lizzie only had a verbal argument regarding her past relationship with his son, during which she threatened to 'get even.'
- After the alleged assault, Lizzie went outside to her porch and set her dog on some cows that had gotten loose near a clothesline.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged with the crime of rape in a state trial court (district court).
- Following a trial, a jury convicted the defendant of rape.
- The trial court sentenced the defendant to nine and a half years of confinement at hard labor.
- The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- The defendant appealed the order denying his motion for a new trial to this appellate 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 the evidence presented by the complaining witness, which lacks testimony of specific physical acts of self-defense after being thrown on a couch, satisfy the legal requirement of resistance necessary to sustain a conviction for rape?
Opinions:
Majority - Jaggaed, J.
No. The evidence of resistance presented by the complaining witness is insufficient to sustain a conviction for rape. The court establishes that resistance is a relative concept, which must be proportionate to the circumstances. While the strictest rule of 'utmost resistance' is not universally required, especially in cases of terror or intimidation, the prosecution must show the victim resisted to the extent of her ability. Here, the prosecutrix's testimony lacked specificity regarding her resistance once on the couch; there was no evidence of bruises on either party, significantly torn clothing, or any threats from the defendant that would excuse a lack of physical opposition. Furthermore, her credibility was undermined by the destruction of physical evidence (washing her skirt, destroying her undergarment) and inconsistencies in her testimony. The evidence as a whole created a grave doubt as to whether sufficient resistance occurred.
Dissenting - Start, C. J.
Yes. A careful consideration of the entire evidentiary record is sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict of guilty. The dissent concurs fully with the reasoning of Justice Lewis.
Dissenting - Lewis, J.
Yes. The question of whether the offense was proven was a matter for the trial court and jury to decide. Considering the prosecutrix's physical condition, her graphic testimony, the defendant’s conduct, the failure of his defense, and his impeachment for truthfulness, the jury was entitled to find him guilty. The majority's focus on the absence of testimony about specific acts of resistance, such as crossing her legs, improperly usurps the jury's role as the finder of fact.
Analysis:
This case establishes a nuanced, circumstance-dependent standard for the element of resistance in rape cases, moving beyond a rigid 'utmost resistance' rule while still placing a substantial burden on the prosecution. The court's detailed scrutiny of the victim's actions and testimony highlights a legal paradigm where the victim's conduct, rather than solely the perpetrator's, is central to the analysis of consent. This decision creates a precedent that requires specific proof of either active physical resistance or a legally recognized excuse for its absence, such as overpowering fear or intimidation, making convictions more difficult in cases lacking corroborating physical evidence or clear threats of violence.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Cowing