implied consent

In this case, a man was convicted of two counts of marital rape. He appealed the conviction arguing that marital rape is different from “ordinary rape” cases because consent is presumed between legally married and cohabiting couples. The Supreme Court rejected this argument as an attempt to revive antiquated and now-rejected standards that a husband could not be convicted of marital rape due to the “implied consent” of his wife.

The female complainant was repeatedly touched in a progressively intimate manner by the accused, despite the fact that she clearly said “no” on each occasion. Any compliance by the complainant with the accused’s advances was done out of fear, as she believed that they were locked inside the accused’s trailer. The conversation that took place between the two in the trailer clearly demonstrated that the accused knew that the complainant was afraid and that she was an unwilling participant.