Commonwealth v. Rhodes
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
510 Pa. 537, 510 A.2d 1217 (1986)
- Written by Deanna Curl, JD
Facts
On February 18, 1982, a third grader (the victim) stopped by a school playground on her way home from a cooking class. While there, the victim discovered Nicholas Rhodes (defendant), a neighbor her family had known for three years, playing chess inside a nearby building. When Rhodes finished playing chess, he asked the victim if she wanted to go with him. Rhodes subsequently took her to the upper level of a nearby abandoned building. Shortly thereafter, Rhodes laid on top of the victim and sexually assaulted her. During the assault, the victim told Rhodes to stop. The victim later walked home, and her mother found her crying and frightened. The victim’s mother discovered that the victim’s underwear was bloody, her vagina was red, and her rectum was torn and bleeding. During a later medical exam, the victim was found to have recto-vaginal tearing and samples taken from her vulva and rectum tested positive for sperm. Rhodes was arrested and later convicted of rape, statutory rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent exposure and assault, and corruption of minors. After Rhodes appealed, a panel of the superior court affirmed his conviction for involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, statutory rape, and corruption of minors, but found there was insufficient evidence for his conviction of rape under the statute. The commonwealth appealed the superior court reversal of the rape conviction.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Larsen, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.