Weishaupt v. Commonwealth
Virginia Supreme Court
315 S.E.2d 847 (1984)

- Written by Sarah Holley, JD
Facts
Janet and Ronald Weishaupt (defendant) were married in 1980. By late 1981, Janet left Ronald, moving out of their martial home and taking their infant child with her. Janet consulted an attorney, who advised her to wait until she and Weishaupt had been separated for one year before filing for divorce. The parties lived separate and apart and did not engage in sexual relations. Any communication was limited to telephone conversations about their child or brief chance encounters. In October 1982, Weishaupt saw his wife at a bowling alley with a group of friends. When the parties left, Weishaupt searched for Janet because he suspected she was having relations with another man. Weishaupt found Janet with a male friend at an apartment. Weishaupt beat on the door until, upon the male friend’s suggestion, Janet opened the door. Weishaupt entered the apartment and proceeded to beat the male friend. Weishaupt tricked the male friend to step outside, leaving him alone in the apartment with Janet. Weishaupt then attacked and raped Janet, despite her repeated screams and requests to stop. Weishaupt was indicted for rape and moved to dismiss the indictment on grounds that, pursuant to English common-law principles, a husband cannot be convicted of raping his wife. The trial court denied Weishaupt’s motion, and a jury found him guilty of attempted rape. Weishaupt appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Thomas, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.