DOC PREVIEW
UI LAW 8022 - In Re John Z

This preview shows page 1 out of 2 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 2 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 2 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

Case BriefCrim, Sexual offenses, forcible rapeHughes, 3/7/15Identity of CaseIn re John Z, California Supreme Court 2003, page 471Summary of Facts/Procedural HistoryVictim was at a house party with her boyfriend and another adolescent, all about the same age. She (maybe, and definitely for the sake of argument) consented to heavy petting and fingering. Then both boys had sex to her, which she did not consent to. One of the defendants plead guilty to sexual battery, the remaining defendant appeals conviction of rape on a theory that continued penetration after consent is withdrawn is not rape or not as high a degree of rape. Judgment of conviction affirmed. Statement of the IssueIs it rape if consent is initially given then withdrawn? HoldingYes. ReasoningThe argument against the conviction was based on older notions of rape law, which were justified by the “outrage” that women felt when they were penetrated against their will. Supposedly, although they had a right to be outraged if penetration continued after they withdrew consent, they could nto be as outraged as in the first scenario and it as therefore less of a crime. The court dismisses this as complete bull, and says that it is a crime. Since the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction of rape, and the withdrawal of consent makes it rape, the judgment is affirmed. Evaluation Dissent: agrees that it is rape after withdrawal of consent but challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. The whole scenario was a mess, and it really isn’t clear what she was consenting to, there was evidence either way and even evidence that she did not consent to the initial penetration (fingering). The majorityassumes that she does because the evidence for withdrawal of consent later is much stronger than the evidence for no initial consent, and the result is the same. Allows the majority to settle an important question of


View Full Document

UI LAW 8022 - In Re John Z

Download In Re John Z
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view In Re John Z and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view In Re John Z 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?