CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
Brief Fact Summary. Defendant was charged with sexual assault after having engaged in sexual penetration of a girl with whom he was engaged in consensual kissing and heavy petting but whom had not consented to penetration. There was no evidence that Defendant used force other than that normally used to effect penetration.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Any act of sexual penetration engaged in without the affirmative and freely given permission of the victim to the specific act of penetration constitutes sexual assault.
Furthermore, submission to a compelling force, or as a result of being put in fear, is not consent.View Full Point of Law
Issue. With regard to the crime of rape, is the element in rape of physical force met simply by an act of non-consensual penetration involving no more force than necessary to accomplish that act?
Held. Yes. Judgment of the Appellate Division reversed.
The New Jersey Supreme Court holds that any act of sexual penetration engaged in without the affirmative and freely-given permission of the victim to the specific act of penetration constitutes sexual assault, as it satisfies the definition of physical force under New Jersey law.
Permission can be found in words or action that, when viewed in the light the circumstances, would demonstrate consent to a reasonable person. The victim does not have to demonstrate expressed non-consent or resistance.
This holding is based on the legislature’s purpose in enacting the law regarding rape and the court says that the legislature would not have wanted to decriminalize unauthorized sexual intrusions on the body of a victim by requiring a showing of force in addition to that entailed in the sexual contact itself.
Discussion. This case brings up the policy issue of whether or not extrinsic force should be a required in proving rape.