Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Baby

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided April 16, 2008No. 14, Sept. Term, 2007Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

RAKER, J.,

concurring and dissenting, in which WILNER, J., joins; BELL, C.J., joins in Part I only; HARRELL, J. joins in Part II only.

I agree with the majority that petitioner’s rape conviction should be reversed, but for different reasons. I agree that the trial court erred in not answering the jury’s note with respect to the effect of a woman’s withdrawal of initial consent post-penetration on the elements of rape. In my view, however, Battle v. State, 287 Md. 675, 414 A.2d 1266 (1980), controlled the trial court’s response, and the court should have told the jury that if a woman consents…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. United States v. Michael JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
  2. Alexander v. WorthingtonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1853
  3. Battle v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1980
  4. Hazel v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1960
  5. Walker v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1996

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API