Court Opinion

ID: 9623647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:39:05.876574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:33.072966
License: Public Domain

COMPTON J.,
Concurring.
I concur in the result. I write separately to express my understanding that the Court’s decision specifically is limited to the precise facts of this case in which there was continuous separation by the wife from the husband for a substantial period of time, no sexual intercourse during the period, and additional objective evidence supporting an intention by the wife permanently to separate from the husband.
While we have recognized in our cases the independence of women in this State, this recognition should not operate to discriminate against men. Thus, because there was no divorce suit *406pending and no court order enjoining the husband from access to the wife, the precedent established by this case will be difficult to administer. Nevertheless, the flood gates have not been opened for the prosecution of husbands for the alleged rapes of their wives.
Therefore, I understand that the decision today does not apply, for example, to the case of a wife’s temporary move to a separate room in the same house, or to the wife’s move to a residence separate from the husband when there is regular social contact between the spouses. In short, I infer that the decision today does not validate or furnish any support for prosecution of husbands when there is a cry of “Rape!” by wives who have not demonstrated over a prolonged period of time a clear intention permanently to separate from the husband and such complete separation has, in fact, occurred.
COCHRAN and RUSSELL, JJ., join in concurring opinion.