Details are here. Essentially, a guy set up a tryst with a woman on the internet, in which he would break into her apartment, having his way with her, part of a rape fantasy thing. Problem? He broke into the wrong apartment, and nearly raped another woman.
The charges of intent to commit rape are being dropped. What do you guys think? If he had actually had sex with her, would it have been rape? And is it attempted rape now? (In his mind, he’s having a pre-planned out, consensual encounter, but in hers…well, obviously not.)
He has to be prosecuted to show that mistakes like that are to be taken seriously. Even though it was just a wacky mix up, an innocent woman was still assaulted. I think they rightfully dropped the intent to rape charge, though, since he didn’t intend to rape her. But he did break, enter, and assault.
Well, if you accept the facts in the story as true, theoretically he is not guilty of any of those crimes. He believed he had the permission of the woman to enter the apartment, and to touch her. His belief negates the mens rea - the guilty mind - necessary for a crime.
I think his belief has to be both subjectively present and objectively reasonable – in other words, even if he had a good-faith belief he was entitled to enter the White House at will, it’s not an objectively reasonable position. So the above analysis may change based on how, exactly, the arrangements were made.
In any event, he’s entered a plea of guilty, which usually waives any non-jurisdictional complaints.
Bricker knows of which he speaks. He is referring to the common law definition of rape. At common law, rape is a “specific intent” crime, meaning that the act must be done with a specific intent in mind. If one incorrectly but reasonably believes that the other person was consenting to intercourse, no specific intent exists and thus no rape occurred, legally speaking.
The Model Penal Code, or MPC, does away with with specific intent crimes and general consent crimes; however, not every statute that utilizes the MPC as a guide uses all four categories (wouldn’t make much sense to have four categories if criminal negligence meant culpability in every crime). In Texas, for example, sexual assault must occur either intentionally or knowingly, which roughly corresponds to the common law rule. Recklessness or criminal negligence doesn’t rise to the level of sexual assualt. Even if “recklessly” were a category, the assailant in the OP’s behavior probably wouldn’t have qualified. “Recklessly” under the MPC means that the actor actually knows that his behavior creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk, and consciously chooses to disregard that risk. Sounds like he wasn’t consciously aware of much of anything. Criminal negligence would probably fit the bill.
You seem to be reading the paragraph you quoted as though any crime is covered by any definition therein – in other words, mere negligence is always sufficient to establish criminal liability in any crime that has a mens rea element. That’s not the case.
The MPC is offering different levels and definitions for those levels of culpable mental states. Even given a crime statutorily defined under the MPC, it’s stil quite possible to define a crime as having to occur “Purposefully,” the first state mentioned, or “Knowingly,” the second state mentioned.
Indeed, I’m willing to bet that almost every state that doesn’t use the common-law definition still requires a knowing or purposeful state of mind for sexual assault.
I’ve followed this disturbing story, and the level of recklessness shown by the defendant seems way over the top. It seems his resulting punishment was incredibly light. He’s also lucky he didn’t break into the house of someone armed, I suppose.
I’m no lawyer… but from what I understand of the case, he broke into her home, assaulted her, but did not actually rape her. He got suspicious because she was putting up such a fight, and asked her some questions to verify the facts. When he realized he was in the wrong apartment, he ceased and desisted.
This does not alter the fact that he broke into someone’s apartment and attacked them, and certainly he should be prosecuted for these crimes. Dumb SOB could at least verify his facts before he comes ploughing through a window or whatever…
HAD he forcibly penetrated her, sure, it would have been rape. Just because HE thought it was “consensual” does not mean it WAS. I think that a case of mistaken identity would not have protected him from that charge. Ignorance is no excuse; this is a precedent many times over.
Insanity – the inability to tell right from wrong – MIGHT be, but it’s a notoriously hard sell. Once the jury found out about this internet rape fantasy thing, I think his goose woulda been cooked.
Yep, just like the police always do before using a battering ram and sending in SWAT. </sarcasm>
Seriously, though…I know he entered a guilty plea and all, but if this case went to trial anyone have an idea how a defense that used “police mistakes” to show that “these things happen” would work?
This scenario was on NYPD Blue a couple weeks ago… except the mistress of the raped woman set it all up, so the guy HAD confirmed the location.
Now that I see the article was actually posted this week, the NYPD Blue coincidence concerns me. I hope they have emails confirming that he had set something up…
What if he “raped” the correct woman, and she later decided to press charges? Would email exchanges between them planning this out absolve him in court?
It seems to me (IANAL) that it ought to. If she’s given consent for him to commit a sex act with her, it’s not actual rape, no matter how much it is staged to look and feel like it.
The guy’s an idiot, though. How could you NOT double-check before a thing like this to make sure you had the right apartment? He must have known how this would look to the police if he broke into the wrong apartment (not to mention what the victim must have been thinking.
Theoretically, if the cops smash down my door and terrorize me, when their warrant specifies the place next door, I can press charges like a motherhonker.
However, the judge has the call as to whether or not to throw the case out. Then my only option is to make it a civil matter.
Given this idiot’s circumstances, I really doubt any sane judge would simply throw the matter out on the basis of “mistake.” He may choose to go easy on the poor fool, simply because no actual harm was intended, but the fact remains that he victimized an innocent woman who had not in any way given consent for any of this.
IANAL But, that depends on when and why she decided to press charges. If she consented during the act, but later decided that the whole thing was icky, then yes. If, however, she revoked consent before the sex occured, then the e-mails may come into play. If they had decided on a safe word (for you vanilla folks<I assume this includes the Dope’s own Vanilla.>, during a lot of BDSM activities, a person may be helpless and screaming in pain or begging for mercy. These are not genuine requests for help or an actual revocation of consent. They are part of the role being played. The partners agree on a safe word to be used should the sub actually wish the act to stop. Thus ‘Please, I’m begging you, stop.’ will be ignored. But the dominant partner will stop immediately upon being told ‘banana’.), and she used it, it’s rape.
Brad Pitt is signed to star in a new action movie: The Revenge of Jonas Grumby. In one scene, his character, the hero, is supposed to swing across the courtyard on a rope, land on the balcony of the villian Grumby, sneak into his room, and smack the dusguised Grumby over the head with a board. Pitt likes to do his own stunts.
As luck would have it, the rope was a bit longer than it should have been, and on the first take Pitt swings and unknowingly lands a floor lower than he should – worse luck, still, that room has a simialrly dressed man standing there. Unaware that he’s in the wrong room, Pitt hits the man across the head with the board, causing a small injury (it was balsa wood, luckily, but enough to cause a bruise).
I think it depends on the person who was receiver of the blow. In any case, comparing a bump on the head to almost being raped is a bit of a stretch, regardless of the intent of the committer of either act.
I doubt the woman in question realized the intentions of the guy and probably thought she was actually going to be raped. I can only imagine that that would be rather stressful and traumatizing, even if the act was never committed.