State v. W.R.

¶1 This case asks us to reconsider whether it violates due process to assign a defendant the burden of proving consent as a defense to a charge of rape by forcible compulsion. We held in State v. Camara, 113 Wn.2d 631, 639-40, 781 P.2d 483 (1989), and reaffirmed in State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 801-04, 147 P.3d 1201 (2006), that notwithstanding the “conceptual overlap” be*760tween consent and forcible compulsion, the defendant may be tasked with proving consent by a preponderance of the evidence. Recently, we were asked to consider this issue a third time but we declined to reach it, instead…