Court Opinion

ID: 9711625
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:35:31.206173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:06.356811
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, J.
(concurring in result).
Whatever may have been the common law rule in seventeenth century England in the time of Sir Matthew Hale, it never was the law of this State that there was a marital exemption from the law of rape and that a husband could not be guilty of the rape of his wife.
Rape is and has always been a statutory crime in the State of New Jersey. Over the years, the statutory language remained virtually unchanged. At the time of the offense in question it provided: “Any person who has carnal knowledge of a woman forcibly against her will ... is guilty of a high misdemeanor.” N.J.S.A. 2A:138-1 (repealed).
The statute has never contained any exception or exemption. I would construe it to mean exactly what it says and would hold that a husband who had carnal knowledge of his wife forcibly and against her will was guilty of rape.
I, therefore, concur in the result reached by the majority but for the reasons heretofore stated.
SULLIVAN, J., concurring in the result.
For reversal and reinstatement — Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices SULLIVAN, PASHMAN, CLIFFORD, SCHREIBER, HANDLER and POLLOCK — 7.
For affirmance — None.