Decision by Court of Appeals could change definition of rape
A decision by Maryland's highest court will determine if a woman has been raped when sexual intercourse continues after previously-granted consent is withdrawn.
The Maryland Court of Appeals heard arguments in the case of Maryland v. Maouloud Baby, which involved a student from Montgomery College.
"This is a case that's fundamental to a sexual assault victim's right to say no," said Lisa Jordan, legislative council for the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault.
"The victim was quite clear that it was hurting, that she wanted him to stop. She physically pushed him away. That's rape," Assistant Attorney General Sarah Page Pritzlaff said to the judges during arguments on Oct. 2.
Assistant Public Defender Michael Malloy argued that the original rape conviction was correctly overturned by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals in 2006.
"If the complainant consented to sexual intercourse but then withdrew her consent after penetration, the respondent was not guilty of rape," he said.
The previous ruling by Court of Special Appeals stated that Maryland law adheres to the tenant that "if a woman consents prior to penetration and withdraws consent following penetration, there is no rape."
This decision was based upon the 1980 ruling in Battle v. State, which stated that since Maryland rape laws adhere to the tenets of English common law, "the act of penetration [is] the essence of the crime of rape."
The ruling further states that "the moment of penetration was the point in time, after which a woman could never be 're-flowered,' that gave rise to the principle that, if a woman consents prior to penetration and withdraws consent following penetration, there is no rape."
"Battle was wrong in spouting some of that old common law because we have a statute now and we had a statute when Battle was decided," Pritzlaff argued.
"The statute arose out of common law principles but the definition of vaginal intercourse was already in the statute. They didn't need to go there and they shouldn't have gone there," she added
The Maryland Court of Appeals heard arguments in the case of Maryland v. Maouloud Baby, which involved a student from Montgomery College.
"This is a case that's fundamental to a sexual assault victim's right to say no," said Lisa Jordan, legislative council for the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault.
"The victim was quite clear that it was hurting, that she wanted him to stop. She physically pushed him away. That's rape," Assistant Attorney General Sarah Page Pritzlaff said to the judges during arguments on Oct. 2.
Assistant Public Defender Michael Malloy argued that the original rape conviction was correctly overturned by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals in 2006.
"If the complainant consented to sexual intercourse but then withdrew her consent after penetration, the respondent was not guilty of rape," he said.
The previous ruling by Court of Special Appeals stated that Maryland law adheres to the tenant that "if a woman consents prior to penetration and withdraws consent following penetration, there is no rape."
This decision was based upon the 1980 ruling in Battle v. State, which stated that since Maryland rape laws adhere to the tenets of English common law, "the act of penetration [is] the essence of the crime of rape."
The ruling further states that "the moment of penetration was the point in time, after which a woman could never be 're-flowered,' that gave rise to the principle that, if a woman consents prior to penetration and withdraws consent following penetration, there is no rape."
"Battle was wrong in spouting some of that old common law because we have a statute now and we had a statute when Battle was decided," Pritzlaff argued.
"The statute arose out of common law principles but the definition of vaginal intercourse was already in the statute. They didn't need to go there and they shouldn't have gone there," she added
Be the first to comment on this story