Spring Break
Court hands down new ruling on rape
Issue date: 4/24/08
Maryland's highest court has redefined the concept of rape to include situations in which one party withdraws consent after penetration.
This decision by the Court of Appeals in the 2004 trial of Baby v. Maryland, which involved a student at Montgomery College, overturned its precedent that said consent could not be withdrawn after initial penetration.
"The Court's ruling clarified Maryland's rape law and it is clearly correct. It supports the autonomy of woman survivors and of women generally," said Lisae Jordan, legal director for the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, which filed a brief in the case.
The ruling gives women the right to retract consent after penetration, a decision that overturns precedent set by previous court rulings.
The court ruled that the Baby v. Maryland case must be retried because a judge did not clarify jurors' confusion surrounding the right to withdraw consent.
This will be the third trial for the accused, Maouloud Baby.
In December 2003, Baby, then 15, began engaging in sex with the alleged victim, who at the time was enrolled in Montgomery College.
According to police, the woman consented on the condition that he stop when she told him to. After penetration, she told him to stop because he was hurting her.
Testimony from the alleged victim in the original 2004 trial states that Baby continued for five or 10 seconds before ending penetration.
''I yelled stop, that it hurt, and I was pushing him off me," the allegedy victim testified.
Baby was originally convicted of first-degree rape and other crimes, and was sentenced to 15 years in prison with all but five suspended.
The Maryland Court of Special Appeals then overturned the conviction.
Their decision was based on a 1980 ruling by the state's highest court, which said that post-penetration withdrawal of consent is not considered rape under Maryland law.
The choice to reevaluate the Baby case has called into question the circumstances of Maryland common-law rape.
This decision by the Court of Appeals in the 2004 trial of Baby v. Maryland, which involved a student at Montgomery College, overturned its precedent that said consent could not be withdrawn after initial penetration.
"The Court's ruling clarified Maryland's rape law and it is clearly correct. It supports the autonomy of woman survivors and of women generally," said Lisae Jordan, legal director for the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, which filed a brief in the case.
The ruling gives women the right to retract consent after penetration, a decision that overturns precedent set by previous court rulings.
The court ruled that the Baby v. Maryland case must be retried because a judge did not clarify jurors' confusion surrounding the right to withdraw consent.
This will be the third trial for the accused, Maouloud Baby.
In December 2003, Baby, then 15, began engaging in sex with the alleged victim, who at the time was enrolled in Montgomery College.
According to police, the woman consented on the condition that he stop when she told him to. After penetration, she told him to stop because he was hurting her.
Testimony from the alleged victim in the original 2004 trial states that Baby continued for five or 10 seconds before ending penetration.
''I yelled stop, that it hurt, and I was pushing him off me," the allegedy victim testified.
Baby was originally convicted of first-degree rape and other crimes, and was sentenced to 15 years in prison with all but five suspended.
The Maryland Court of Special Appeals then overturned the conviction.
Their decision was based on a 1980 ruling by the state's highest court, which said that post-penetration withdrawal of consent is not considered rape under Maryland law.
The choice to reevaluate the Baby case has called into question the circumstances of Maryland common-law rape.
Viewing Comments 1 - 7 of 8
Ryan M Harrison
posted 4/27/08 @ 10:46 PM EST
This is absolutely absurd. Ability to withdraw consent aside, there was no force or threat of force - it's not rape in the first degree. Period.
Lindagw
posted 5/18/08 @ 5:40 PM EST
What is wrong with these law makers. Are they a bunch of sexually repressed old men or what? This law is as stupid as the AWA! Insane, feel good laws designed to get votes come election time, yet, destroys families, protects no one, endangers children as well as undermines the very U. (Continued…)
CJ
posted 5/19/08 @ 11:12 AM EST
Uh, I agree with the withdrawn consent being considered rape.
But, uh, 5-10 secs? C'mon.
AA
posted 6/24/08 @ 10:44 AM EST
Good !! I'm loving how f***ed up the legal system has become.
His life is gone. Life is one motion in time and does not turn back.
However, I hope all states adopt this law; because, the more they do this, the less will men be paying attention to rape "victims. (Continued…)
Lindagw
posted 9/11/08 @ 12:32 AM EST
Federal Judge Stops New State Sex Offender Law
A federal judge Wednesday put a stop to a new state sex offender law. The law would have reclassified sex offenders putting them in categories based on the crimes they committed. (Continued…)
Katherine Waite
posted 2/24/09 @ 1:09 PM EST
Thank you for writing the article, I am very pleased with how it came out.
Katrina Arkwright
posted 2/25/09 @ 6:57 AM EST
Good information. Thanks for the post.
Post a Comment