Court Opinion

ID: 9717749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:09:51.424838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:53.961953
License: Public Domain

Brown, J.
(concurring). I am in full agreement with the reasoning of the panel. It is time to put to rest the societal myth that when a man is about to engage in sexual intercourse with a “nice” woman “a little force is always necessary.” That notion has not been insinuated into our jurisprudence.
The essence of the offense of rape is lack of consent on the part of the victim. I am prepared to say that when a woman says “no” to someone any implication other than a manifestation of nonconsent that might arise in that person’s psyche is legally irrelevant, and thus no defense. Any further action is unwarranted and the person proceeds at his peril. In effect, he assumes the risk. In 1985,1 find no social utility in establishing a rule defining nonconsensual intercourse on the basis of the subjective (and quite likely wishful) view of the more aggressive player in the sexual encounter.1 See and compare Common*522wealth v. Thayer, ante 234, 238 (1985) (defendant’s expectations are irrelevant if complainant did not consent).
Appendix to the Opinion of the Court.
The paragraph numbers have been inserted for reference in the course of our discussion of the instructions.
“[!.] I will, at this point, call your attention to the offense of rape. Although this is a crime of ancient origin, it is now embodied in a statute: General Laws Chapter 265, Section 22, as amended significantly in 1974.
“[2.] As I read the pertinent parts of this statute I am first going to call your attention to this offense without aggravated features. I will later come to that.
“[3.] As to the crime of offensive rape without aggravation, the pertinent parts of the statute are these.
“ ‘Whoever has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse with a person and compels such person to submit by force and against his will’ — in this case, her will —
“ ‘ — or compels such person to submit by threat of bodily injury shall be punished.’
“[4.] Do you mind if I repeat that?
“ ‘Whoever has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse with a person and compels such person to submit by force and against his will or compels such person to submit by threat of bodily injury shall be punished.”
“[5.] Now I have, for the sake of convenience in explaining the legal precepts, broken this crime — this offense down into three real components.
“[6.] In order to find any of the defendants guilty of the crime of rape, without'aggravation, the following legal components must be proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt. One, that the defendant or defendants had sexual intercourse with the alleged victim.
“[7.] Two, that such intercourse was accomplished by force or by threat of bodily injury, to the extent that it was against the will or without the consent of the complainant.
“[8.] Let me repeat: You must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants had sexual intercourse with the victim. Two, that such intercourse was accomplished by force or by threat of bodily injury and therefore was against the will, or without the consent of the complainant.
“[9.] Intercourse means that the man’s sexual organ penetrated the female’s sexual organ.
*523“[10.] Now, the first part of component 2 is that sexual intercourse was accomplished by force and what does force mean in legal contemplation?
“[11.] It’s been said that force in this context means that it must be such to overcome the woman’s will; that it be sufficient to accomplish the man’s purpose of having sexual intercourse against her will.
“[12.] There is no definitive rule as to the amount of force which is required. You will note, however, that the second part of component 2 provides, and I will read it again: component 2 is that such intercourse was accomplished by force or by threat of bodily injury.
“[13.] So if either one of those exist and you are convinced that they exist on the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, then that component is satisfied.
“[14.] Now, note that the second part of component 2 provides, in addition to the exertion of actual force in compelling submission of the female to sexual intercourse, this offense can be committed if bodily injury is threatened for the purpose of extorting consent or preventing resistance and if the threats create a reasonable apprehension in the female of dangerous consequences or bodily harm, or if the threats overpower the mind of the victim to the extent that she does not resist, this component is satisfied.
“[15.] Now, you have got to be convinced of that component beyond a reasonable doubt of either one of those things. That is that actual force was used or that there was threat of bodily harm. This, of course, must be within the credible evidence that was presented in this courtroom.
“[16.] Now, this threat of bodily harm may be inferred from the conduct of the defendants. It may be expressed by act or conduct as well as words, you understand that.
“[17.] Of course the fear instilled by the threats, if you find such threats, must be reasonable in the circumstances delineated by the credible evidence. In other words, you look at the narrative, and the narrative of the defense which you have adopted and together with the ride in the car and what happened in the cottage or summer house at Rockport, and you apply these concepts to them. So that if you find the threat of bodily harm, either express or implied, you must then consider: was that threat of bodily harm expressed by conduct or words, and was fear instilled in the alleged victim so that it was reasonable for her not to resist? Was her will to resist overcome by the express or implied conduct of the defendants in threatening bodily harm?
“[18.] Now, you may find that beyond reasonable doubt, or you may not find it at all, since you are the fact finders.
“[19.] Now, you must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt on the evidence presented, the acts of the defendants, and the threats, if any, of the defendants, but whatever the defendants did or said, were reasonably calculated to create in the mind of the victim a real apprehension due to fear of imminent bodily harm, serious enough to impair or overcome her will to resist.
*524“[20.] The next component of course is — the way I have given it to you — is that this must be, and must operate against the will of the victim.
“[21.] Now, against the will, and without her consent, are synonymous terms. Now, in determining whether or not there was no consent, I read to you pertinent parts of a Massachusetts case.
“[22.] ‘The act of the defendant must have been against the will, that is without the woman’s consent, and there must have been sufficient force used by him to accomplish his purpose.’
“[23.] ‘The jury must be satisfied that there was no consent during any part of the act, and that the degree of resistance was frequently an essential matter for them to consider in determining whether the alleged want of consent was honest and real. But there is no rule of law requiring a jury to be satisfied that the woman, according to the measure of her strength, used all the physical force in opposition of which she was capable. ’
“[24.] So what that says, put succinctly is that you may consider the resistance which has been delineated in the facts, as to — you may consider that as to whether or not she consented to these acts.
“[25.] Now, if you find that these men, these defendants, had sexual intercourse with the alleged victim, or any of them, and that this intercourse was compelled by force exerted by them or any one of them or she was compelled to submit to the intercourse by threat of bodily injury, and you are convinced of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendants, or any one of them guilty.
“[26.] If you are not so convinced you must acquit these defendants.”

 “ ‘No’ must be understood to mean precisely that. Old cultural patterns — no matter how entrenched — must adapt to developing concepts of equality .... Surely [we] . . . should understand that sexist stereotypes of ‘no’ meaning ‘yes’ can’t justify aggression against women.” Dershowitz, New Rape Laws Needed, Boston Herald American, June 24, 1985, at 19, col. 1.