State v. Jones
Supreme Court of Idaho
299 P.3d 219 (2013)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Jones (defendant) and A. S. had a sexual affair for approximately four years. On May 22, 2008, however, the two agreed that they would end the affair. Despite this, Jones and A. S. had consensual sex later that day. Afterward, however, while A. S. was lying on the bed, Jones sat next to her and began touching her sexually. A. S. reminded Jones that they had agreed that their just-completed sexual encounter would be their last. Jones then got on top of A. S., pushed down on her body, pinned her hands underneath her, and began having sex with her, despite her repeated yells and pleas with Jones to stop. The two remained in contact after this incident, and on May 28, Jones was at A. S.’s apartment. A. S. was lying on the couch, and Jones grabbed and pulled her hair and then began touching her sexually. A. S. did not say or do anything in response. Rather, she “just laid there and didn’t move,” hoping that Jones would leave her alone. Jones did not leave her alone, but started having sex with her. A. S. testified that she “just froze” and was paralyzed with fear. Jones was charged with forcible rape for his actions on May 22 (Count I) and May 28 (Count II). The jury convicted him on both counts. Jones appealed. The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed the Count I conviction and reversed the Count II conviction. Jones appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jones, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.
