You can imagine the outrage following the reversal of a rape conviction by the court of appeals in Maryland on October 30, 2006 when the court ruled that the judge erred in not instructing the jury that it's not rape if a woman consents to sex but then withdraws her consent after the moment of penetration.
In this case involving an alleged perpetrator aged 16, the Court of Special Appeals said Monday that “no rape occurred if the jury found that” the 18-year-old woman in the case “withdrew her prior consent after penetration.” However, a refusal to stop might constitute assault, the court said. The appellate court quoted a 1945 decision in State v. Allen (1945) to support its conclusion:
“But, to be sure, it was the act of penetration that was the essence of the crime of rape; after this initial infringement upon the responsible male's interest in a woman's sexual and reproductive functions, any further injury was considered to be less consequential. The damage was done. It was this view that the moment of penetration was the point in time, after which a woman could never be "re-flowered," that gave rise to the principle that, if a woman consents prior to penetration and withdraws consent following penetration, there is no rape.
You can read the decision in Maouloud Baby v. State of Maryland here.
To contact Jeanne Hannah with your questions or to view her Family Law website, click here.
Comments