From our private database of 22,300+ case briefs...
State v. Robinson
Maine Supreme Court
496 A.2d 1067 (1985)
Facts
At trial, the victim and Gordon Robinson III (defendant) gave sharply divergent testimonies about the incident in question. The victim testified that she allowed Robinson into her home because he had run out of gas and requested to use her telephone. Rather than use the telephone, Robinson entered the victim’s living room and thereafter forced her against her will to submit to sexual intercourse with him. Meanwhile, Robinson testified that he and the victim engaged in consensual sexual intercourse but that during intercourse the victim declared, “I guess I don’t want to do this anymore,” at which point Robinson stopped, got dressed, and left her home. During deliberations, the jury asked, “if two people began consenting to an act, then one person says no and the other continues – is that rape?” The judge answered in the affirmative and emphasized that the key element is “continuation under compulsion.” The jury found Robinson guilty of rape. On appeal, Robinson attacked the trial judge’s instruction as erroneous, arguing that once initial penetration of sexual intercourse is made with consent, subsequent revocation of consent could not transform continued sexual intercourse into rape, even if compelled.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McKusick, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 516,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,300 briefs, keyed to 984 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.
