United States v.
Hughes: Woman is drunk. She leaves the door
open for her boyfriend to come over but another guy comes in and they
have intercourse. The trial court refused to enter a summary
judgment for not guilty and the military court agrees with trial
court; there is no reason to enter an order for not guilty. They
think he may be guilty. The military statute they are interpreting
defines rape as an act of sexual intercourse by force and w/o consent
and the military manual states, “if there is actual consent,
although obtained by fraud, that act is not rape”
- HUGHES TEST FOR FRAUD FACTUM/INDUCEMENT: The court in Hughes suggests that if you consent to have sex with an identifiable person, it doesn’t matter who you think he is. But if you think you’re consenting to having sex with someone and someone else has sex with you, then that is rape.
- The difference lies between the characteristics of a person and the identity of a person.
- Ex: Brad Pitt look alike that says he’s Brad and you have sex thinking he is Brad Pitt. Is this more like having sex with someone you think is your husband or someone you think is a psychologist?
No comments:
Post a Comment