People v. John Z case brief

 

People v. John Z.: Laura, 17 years old, was naked in a dark room, already having been raped by another boy. D walks in unclothed. He began kissing her and she kissed back whereupon he got on top of her, inserted himself then rolled her over on top of him. She claims she tried to get off but he held her down by the hips. He rolled her over and continued. She told him she needed to go home so he had to stop but he did not. After about 10 minutes he got off her.

1. Can forcible rape be committed if the female consents to an initial penetration, and then withdraws her consent during intercourse, but he continues?
   1. The court finds that even if they assume that Laura first consented, her withdrawal of consent was such that no reasonable person in D’s position would have believed that Laura continued to consent to the act.
2. How high is the standard for communicating your no after initial consent. Is it or should it be a much higher standard?
3. Also, has the force requirement been met in this case?

1. The dissent believes that all elements of rape must still be proved (the prosecution still must show that D forced Laura to continue to have sex). The majority relies on D’s continuance as proof of force but they do not say how soon he should have stopped – is persistence the same thing as force?
   1. He did roll her over once she asked to leave. It’s tricky again because it also looks like normal sex, but in this context maybe it looks a little like force.
   2. What about the MTS Force Theory? Is this what the court is using?
   3. Should this force requirement be less then that of stranger rape – it seems so!