A January ruling by the California Supreme Court has redefined the law in California about what constitutes consensual sex.  The Court ruled
that a man could be convicted of rape if the woman consented to sex
but changed her mind during intercourse.  In a six to one decision, the Court said that it is rape if a man continues to have sex with a woman who originally consented but then withdraws consent after penetration.

In the case, People v.  John Z., 17-year-old Laura T.  went with her
friend, Juan, to a party at the home of John Z.  in March of 2000.  All three were juveniles at the time.  Laura spent time in a bedroom with Juan and John, who kissed and partially disrobed her, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Laura said that Juan then raped her.  He reached a plea agreement and
admitted to sexual battery and unlawful sexual intercourse, a misdemeanor.

Laura also reluctantly engaged in sex with John, reports the National
Law Journal.  Laura claims that John continued to have sex with her
after she repeatedly asked him to stop.  A juvenile court ruled that John committed rape, and he served approximately six months in a juvenile detention center.  Sacramento's 3rd District Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's decision.  John appealed to the state Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's majority opinion, written by Justice Ming Chin,
states, We conclude that the offense of forcible rape occurs when, during apparently consensual intercourse, the victim expresses an
objection and attempts to stop the act and the defendant forcibly continues despite objection.

Justice Janice Rogers Brown, the only dissenting judge, agreed with
the overall ruling but dissented on its application to the case.  She contended the victim did not clearly communicate her feelings, and the
male did not use obvious force, reports the Los Angeles Times.

Legal Precedent

While some legal scholars and men's rights activists claim the Court's
decision is unfair and unconstitutional, many other legal scholars and
women's advocates say the ruling protects a woman's right to control
what happens to her body at all times.  The ruling means that a woman
has complete choice over her sexual activity, said Douglas E.  Beloof,
Executive Director of the National Crime Victim Law Institute and a professor at Lewis & Clark College Law School in Portland, Oregon, in
the Los Angeles Times.

What it says is that there has to be consent, and it continues to do
away with the idea that women are fair game and thatif a woman gives
some indication to a man that, in his interpretation, that she wants
to have sex with him, he can go ahead and do it, even when she indicates she doesn't want it, said Dorothy Roberts, criminal law professor at Northwestern University on National Public Radio's Tavis
Smiley Show.  I think we're increasingly getting to a point where we
understand and try to get juries to understand that sex without
consent is a crime.

The state Supreme Court's ruling clarifies years of conflicting precedent in California.  It overturns a 1985 lower court ruling that declared that a man cannot be charged with rape if the sex act began with the woman's consent.  High courts in other states, including Maryland and North Carolina, also have accepted this view.  It is unclear what impact, if any, the California Supreme Court's ruling will have on cases in other states.

I think it is precedent setting, continued Professor Roberts on NPR, and I think it's a good thing.  we've gone from the old-fashioned notion that women had to be beaten and brutalized before they could prove rape.  All men have to do is listen to what their sexual partners are saying and abide by it and not think they have the right to continue having sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with them.

Reprinted and adapted from
'News Flash' (http://www.fvpf.org/newsflash), an online newsletter of the Family Violence Prevention Fund.