State v. Robinson
1985 Me. LEXIS 808, 496 A.2d 1067 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Sexual intercourse that begins consensually becomes rape if one party revokes their consent and the other party continues the act through compulsion.
Facts:
- In October 1983, Gordon Robinson III went to the prosecutrix's home in Garland during the early morning hours.
- Robinson stated he had run out of gasoline and needed to use her telephone, and the prosecutrix allowed him inside.
- Instead of using the phone, Robinson joined the prosecutrix in the living room to watch a movie.
- The prosecutrix testified that Robinson initiated a struggle and forced her to have sexual intercourse against her will.
- Robinson testified that they engaged in consensual foreplay and sexual intercourse.
- According to Robinson's testimony, during intercourse the prosecutrix stated, 'I guess I don’t want to do this anymore.'
- Robinson claimed that he stopped immediately upon her statement, got dressed, and left the house.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Maine prosecuted Gordon Robinson III for Class A rape in the Penobscot County Superior Court (trial court).
- During deliberations, the jury submitted a question to the presiding justice asking if a consensual act becomes rape if one person says no and the other continues.
- The justice instructed the jury that if consent is revoked and intercourse is continued by compulsion, it would be rape.
- The jury found Robinson guilty of Class A rape.
- Robinson (appellant) appealed the judgment of conviction to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, arguing that the justice's supplemental instruction was an incorrect statement of the law.
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 sexual intercourse that begins consensually become rape if one party revokes consent and the other party continues the act by compulsion?
Opinions:
Majority - McKusick, Chief Justice
Yes. Sexual intercourse that begins consensually becomes rape if consent is revoked and one party continues the act through compulsion. The court reasoned that the Maine Criminal Code's definition of 'sexual intercourse' as 'any penetration' includes the continuation of penetration after consent is withdrawn. The transformation from a consensual act to rape does not occur merely upon the revocation of consent, but when the continuation of the act is achieved through 'compulsion,' defined as physical force or threat of force that overcomes the victim's will. The court rejected the argument that only non-consensual initial penetration can constitute rape, finding such a rule impractical and contrary to common sense, as it would illogically hinge on whether a victim could momentarily dislodge the perpetrator. The court found that the jury's role is to determine the factual question of when a consensual act becomes a compelled one, and the judge's instruction on this point was a correct statement of the law.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant precedent in Maine by affirming that consent to sexual activity is ongoing and can be withdrawn at any point. It clarifies that the crime of rape is not confined to the moment of initial penetration but can occur whenever an act, even one that started consensually, continues by force after consent is revoked. The ruling solidifies the legal principle of 'no means no' at any time, shifting the legal focus from the victim's initial consent to the perpetrator's use of compulsion after consent is withdrawn. This impacts future cases by ensuring that defendants cannot use initial consent as a complete defense if they continue the act by force after that consent has been clearly communicated as revoked.
