Commonwealth v. Chretien, 383 Mass. 123 (1981)

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. 265, § 22, and its definition in G.L. c. 277, § 39, eliminated the common law rule that had barred prosecution for spousal rape. The Court reasoned that the Legislature’s 1974 revisions modernized the language of rape law and intentionally omitted the term “unlawful,” thereby removing any implied spousal exclusion. It further found that Massachusetts’ Domestic Violence Act (G.L. c. 209A) reflected a clear legislative policy against all forms of coerced sexual relations within marriage. Even if the common law rule still applied, the Court held that the defendant had fair notice of the criminality of his conduct, as the victim had already obtained a divorce judgment nisi, which revoked any implied marital consent. The Court also upheld the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, including limits on cross-examination under the rape-shield statute. The decision in Commonwealth v. Chretien abolished any spousal immunity for rape in Massachusetts, and affirmed that marriage does not nullify a spouse’s right to refuse sexual intercourse.