Brief Fact Summary. Defendant Rusk was found guilty by a jury of second-degree rape, however, there was no evidence of resistance. The question for the Court was whether there was sufficient evidence of apprehension on the part of the alleged victim such that the jury could find Defendant guilty.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The reasonableness of a rape victim’s apprehension is a question of fact for the jury to determine.
Furthermore, submission to a compelling force, or as a result of being put in fear, is not consent.
View Full Point of LawIssue. Is the reasonableness of a rape victim’s apprehension of fear a question of law or a question of fact?
Held. The reasonableness of a rape victim’s apprehension is a question of fact for the jury to determine. Judgment reversed.
The Court need not determine whether the defendant’s conduct was reasonably calculated to produce fear in the alleged victim. The only question is whether there is enough evidence from which it can be deduced that the victim’s apprehension was reasonable in light of the circumstances.
Dissent. The dissent disagrees with the majority’s conclusion that, absent a court determination that the defendant’s conduct was reasonably calculated to produce fear in the prosecutor, the reasonableness of the alleged victim’s apprehension of fear was a fact for the jury to determine. Because rape is regarded as a crime of violence, there must be evidence of conduct on the part of the defendant to show that the alleged victim’s fears were created by the defendant.
Discussion. This case brings up the difficulty of proving or disproving force implicit in rape cases where there is no evidence of resistance.