Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Mlinarich

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 30, 1985No. 473PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WIEAND, Judge:

The issue in this appeal is the interpretation to be placed upon the phrase “forcible compulsion” as it was used to define the crime of rape. What did the legislature intend when it defined rape as sexual intercourse with another person “by forcible compulsion ” or “by threat of forcible compulsion that would prevent resistance by a person of reasonable resolution”? Did the legislature intend to include within the crime of rape acts of sexual intercourse induced by threats to do non-violent acts? After a careful *272review of the legislative history of Section 3121 of the Crimes…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. ClairSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  2. Commonwealth v. DriscollSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  3. Commonwealth v. LobiondoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  4. Commonwealth v. GoldhammerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  5. Commonwealth v. BroughtonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. RhodesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  2. State v. FuentesNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1994
  3. Commonwealth v. EnnisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  4. Commonwealth v. MlinarichSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  5. Commonwealth v. PierceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990

24 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