United States v. Webster
United States Coast Guard Court of Military Review
37 M.J. 670 (1993)

- Written by Sara Rhee, JD
Facts
Jerry Webster (defendant) was charged with the rape of Petty Officer T., an officer with whom he served in the United States Coast Guard. Prior to the date of the charged offense, Webster and Petty Officer T. had seen each other socially a few times and had held hands and kissed. On the date of the charged offense, the two began kissing while alone at Petty Officer T.’s apartment. Webster asked to go to Petty Officer T.’s bedroom, but she refused. Webster then asked to go into the closet. Petty Officer T. again refused. Webster pulled Petty Officer T. to the living room floor, but Petty Officer T. got up and asked him to leave. Petty Officer T. walked toward the front door, which was near the kitchen. In the kitchen, Webster backed Petty Officer T. up against the counter. Petty Officer T. told Webster no five more times. Webster began engaging in sexual intercourse with Petty Officer T. Petty Officer T. testified that she did not attempt to flee, did not scream, and did not push Webster away. Petty Officer T. was angry at Webster for what he was doing but did not fear that he would harm her. Webster was convicted of rape, in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Webster appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the act of sexual intercourse was by force or without consent.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Edwards, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 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.