State v. Rusk

Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1981 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawRapeForceConsentSufficiency of the Evidencesecond degree rapeforcethreat of force

Facts

After meeting Rusk in a bar, Pat agreed to give him a ride home but repeatedly refused to go into his apartment. According to Pat, Rusk turned off her ignition, took her car keys, opened her door, and insisted that she come up, causing her fear because she was alone late at night in an unfamiliar neighborhood. In the apartment, after Pat asked to leave, Rusk told her to stay, pulled her by the arms onto the bed, undressed her, and when she cried and asked if he would let her go without killing her if she complied, he put his hands on her throat and began lightly choking her. Pat then submitted to oral sex and vaginal intercourse, after which she left, promptly reported the incident to police, and medical evidence confirmed intercourse.

Issue

Whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there was legally sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the intercourse was by force or threat of force, against Pat's will, and without her consent under Art. 27, § 463(a)(1). More specifically, the court considered whether the intermediate appellate court misapplied Hazel v. State in concluding that the evidence of force and nonconsent was insufficient.

Rule

Once vaginal intercourse is established, second degree rape under Art. 27, § 463(a)(1) requires proof of force, actual or constructive, and lack of consent. Force is established if the victim resisted and her resistance was overcome by force, or if she was prevented from resisting by threats to her safety; acts or threats reasonably calculated to create in the victim a real apprehension of imminent bodily harm serious enough to impair or overcome her will to resist are the equivalent of force. Submission induced by fear is not consent, and generally the victim's fear should be reasonably grounded; whether that fear is reasonable may be a question for the jury. On appellate review, the question is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt when the evidence is viewed most favorably to the prosecution.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After leaving a music club in Milwaukee, Lena Ortiz agreed to drive Devin Cole to his apartment building. When she stopped outside, she twice refused to go inside, but Devin took her phone from the center console, opened her door, and said, "Come up now." In the apartment, Lena asked to leave, Devin told her to stay, pulled her by both wrists onto a mattress, and when she began crying he pressed his hand against her neck until she stopped resisting and submitted to intercourse.

If Devin argues on appeal that Lena never screamed, ran, or physically fought him, how should the court rule on the sufficiency of the evidence?

Explanation. The majority held that once intercourse is established, the State must prove force, actual or constructive, and lack of consent. The same evidence may establish both when submission is induced by fear. Conduct such as immobilizing the victim, refusing to let her leave, pulling her onto a bed, and applying force to the neck permits a rational jury to find force and nonconsent. The victim's failure to scream or escape does not defeat the case if the jury could find she was restrained by fear of violence.