State v. Smith
1989 Conn. LEXIS 26, 554 A.2d 713, 210 Conn. 132 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Sexual assault is a general intent crime that does not require the state to prove the defendant had a specific intent or mens rea regarding the victim's lack of consent. The issue of consent is determined by an objective standard based on whether the complainant's words and conduct, as viewed by a reasonable person, manifested consent.
Facts:
- The victim, T, met the defendant at a bar, and he bought her a drink.
- The defendant invited T to dinner with her friend and another man, and he paid for T's meal.
- After dinner, the defendant and T walked to his apartment; her friend and the other man were supposed to follow but never arrived.
- At the apartment, the defendant attempted to kiss T, who resisted and stated, "I really don’t want to do anything."
- The defendant held onto T, stating, "you don’t think I paid for dinner for nothing, do you."
- T spit in the defendant's face and tried kicking him off, but he was physically much larger and overpowered her.
- The defendant told T that he could "make it hard on me or I could make it easy on myself," which she interpreted as a threat of physical harm.
- Fearing injury, T ceased her physical resistance, at which point the defendant led her to the bedroom and engaged in vaginal intercourse with her.
- Afterward, T secretly placed her cigarette lighter under a couch cushion to prove she had been in the apartment before leaving in a cab.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged with sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70.
- Following a trial in a Connecticut trial court, a jury found the defendant guilty.
- The defendant filed a post-trial motion for a judgment of acquittal, which the trial court denied.
- The defendant appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Connecticut, the state's highest 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 a conviction for sexual assault in the first degree require the state to prove that the defendant possessed a specific intent, or mens rea, regarding the victim's lack of consent?
Opinions:
Majority - Shea, J.
No, the crime of sexual assault in the first degree requires only a general intent to perform the physical acts constituting the crime, not a specific intent regarding the victim's lack of consent. The court reaffirmed its precedent that sexual assault is a general intent crime. It explicitly rejected legal approaches that would require the state to prove the defendant's subjective awareness that the complainant was not consenting. Instead, the court held that the issue of consent must be determined objectively based on the complainant's manifestations. The proper inquiry is whether the complainant's words and conduct, under all the circumstances, would justify a reasonable person's belief that she had consented. In this case, T's verbal refusals, spitting, and kicking could not have been reasonably interpreted as consent, and her eventual submission after being threatened did not constitute consent.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies that sexual assault in Connecticut is a general intent crime, shifting the legal focus away from the defendant's subjective state of mind. By establishing an objective, reasonable person standard for evaluating consent based on the victim's manifested words and actions, the court prevents defendants from using an unreasonable or self-serving belief in consent as a defense. This ruling clarifies that consent is judged by the victim's outward behavior as reasonably construed, not their internal thoughts or the defendant's purported interpretation. This precedent makes it more difficult for a defendant to escape liability by claiming a mistaken belief in consent if that belief was not objectively reasonable.
