Warren v. State
336 S.E.2d 221 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Georgia, there is no implied marital exemption for the crimes of rape and aggravated sodomy. A husband can be criminally prosecuted for the rape of his wife, as marriage does not extinguish a wife's right to consent to sexual intercourse.
Facts:
- Daniel Steven Warren was married to his wife.
- Warren and his wife were living together at the time of the incident.
- Warren was accused of raping his wife.
- Warren was also accused of performing aggravated sodomy on his wife.
Procedural Posture:
- Daniel Steven Warren was indicted by a Fulton County Grand Jury for the rape and aggravated sodomy of his wife.
- In the trial court, Warren filed a pre-trial general demurrer and a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing a husband cannot legally rape his wife.
- After a hearing, the trial court denied Warren's motions.
- Warren obtained a certificate of immediate review from the trial court.
- Warren then filed an application for an interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia, which the court granted.
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 Georgia's rape and aggravated sodomy statute contain an implicit common law marital exemption that precludes the prosecution of a husband for the rape and aggravated sodomy of his wife?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, Justice
No, Georgia's rape and aggravated sodomy statutes do not contain an implicit marital exemption. The historical common law theories supporting such an exemption—namely, Hale's implied consent theory, the wife-as-chattel theory, and the unity of person theory—are archaic and have been invalidated by modern constitutional and statutory law that recognizes a woman's individual liberty, personal security, and separate legal identity. The plain language of Georgia's rape statute, which applies to 'a person' without qualification, does not exclude a husband. Furthermore, since consent was never a defense to the historical crime of sodomy in Georgia, a marital exemption based on implied consent cannot be read into the modern aggravated sodomy statute. Applying these statutes to a husband does not violate due process, as their language provides sufficient warning of the proscribed conduct.
Analysis:
This decision officially abolishes the common law marital rape exemption in Georgia, a significant departure from centuries of legal tradition. The ruling reflects a modern understanding of marriage as a partnership between legal equals, rather than a contract in which a woman forfeits her bodily autonomy. By grounding its reasoning in both statutory interpretation and the evolution of women's constitutional rights, the court established a strong precedent that a marriage license is not a defense to sexual violence. This case signals a definitive shift in legal doctrine, ensuring that married women receive the same legal protection from sexual assault as unmarried individuals and influencing other jurisdictions to reconsider similar exemptions.
Unlock the full brief for Warren v. State