A man was convicted of raping his estranged wife and breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony. On appeal, he argued that under the common law, a husband could not be convicted of raping his wife. The Supreme Judicial Court rejected this “marital rape exemption,” holding that the revised rape statute, G.L. c.
The Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal or “STF”) denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus of the petitioner, upholding the constitutionality of Article 224(a) of the Penal Code which establishes a presumption of violence in sex crimes against minors. The petitioner was convicted of rape and child abuse, and was sentenced to a prison term of eight years for rape and one year and ten months for child abuse.
The Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal or “STF”) denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus of the petitioner, who had been convicted by the Superior Court of Justice (“STJ”) of raping his two minor daughters, both under the age of 14, over a period of five years. Although the petitioner had been sentenced to 16 years and 8 months in jail for his crimes, the lower court subsequently reduced the petitioner’ sentence by one-quarter, pursuant to Presidential Decree No.
Due to inconsistencies in the application of the Romanian law criminalizing forced sexual relations with family members of opposite sex through constraint or taking advantage of the victim’s inability to defend herself or express her will, the High Court of Cassation and Justice has been called upon by the General Prosecutor to establish the legal qualification of the elements representing both rape and incest.
A woman filed for an ex parte protection order against her estranged husband alleging that he vandalized her home and vehicle, called her employer and tried to get her fired, assaulted her repeatedly and was arrested for domestic violence, and regularly called and harassed her. On these grounds, she requested the immediate ex parte order of protection from the trial court. The trial court issued the order and set a hearing date that did not fall within the required ten days of service of the order per
The plaintiff was a volunteer at a swap shop operated by the Town of Falmouth at its waste management facility. The defendant was employed by the town as the land supervisor and gatekeeper for the facility. Over a period of approximately three years, the defendant repeatedly visited the swap shop and made unwelcome sexual advances toward the plaintiff. The plaintiff asked the defendant to stop and to leave her alone, but the conduct continued. The town later terminated the plaintiff’s volunteer services and barred her from the facility.
In State v. Rangel, 213 N.J. 500 (2013), the New Jersey Supreme Court resolved ambiguity regarding the phrase “aggravated assault on another” located in the first-degree sexual-assault statute, § 2C:14-2(a)(3). In this particular case, the defendant was convicted of first-degree aggravated sexual assault after attacking a woman on the street. The Appellate Division reversed that conviction, interpreting the “on another” language to require that the aggravated assault be directed at a third party rather than the victim of the original crime.
In State v. Zeidell, 154 N.J. 417 (1998), the Supreme Court of New Jersey addressed a case involving two young children, ages eight and ten, who observed the defendant masturbating from a distance while on a public beach. The defendant was initially convicted of second-degree sexual assault and endangering the welfare of the children. The Appellate Division reversed the sexual assault convictions, finding that the statutory requirement of specific victimization had not been proven. On appeal, the Supreme Court reinstated the convictions.
