Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
8. The man's constitutional rights were
The jury found the man guilty, and the man appealed, contending that the court's instructions on the issues of whether the woman was his wife and whether he reasonably believed she had consented violated his constitutional rights.
The court also instructed the jury that it should find the defendant not guilty if it found either that the woman was the man's wife or that the man reasonably believed that the woman had consented to the sexual intercourse, but that the burden of persuasion as to these issues was on the defendant.
At the conclusion of the case, the court instructed the jury that in order to find the man guilty of rape, it must find beyond a reasonable doubt that he had sexual intercourse with the woman without her consent.
A man is charged with the rape of a woman. At trial, the woman testifies to facts sufficient for a jury to find that the man had sexual intercourse with her, that she did not consent, and that the two were not married. The man testifies in his own defense that he believed she consented to sexual intercourse and that she was his common-law wife.
A statute provides: A person commits the crime of rape if he has sexual intercourse with a female, not his wife, without her consent.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
B is correct. In this case, the prosecution must prove three things: (i) that the man had sexual intercourse with a woman; (ii) that was not his wife; and (iii) it was without her consent. All three elements must be proven by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the burden of persuasion about whether the woman was the man's wife must be on the prosecution. The burden of persuasion only shifts to the defendant when he claims an affirmative defense. Here, the defendant did assert a reasonable belief that the woman had consented, which is an affirmative defense because it does not go to any element of the crime. Thus, placing the burden on the defendant to show that he reasonably believed that the woman had consented would not violate his constitutional rights.
A is incorrect. As explained above, placing the burden on the defendant to convince the jury that he had a reasonable belief of consent is an affirmative defense because it does not go to the elements of the charge of rape. As a result, the instruction as to the affirmative defense was constitutional.
C is incorrect. Again, the instruction regarding the element of whether she was the defendant's wife was unconstitutional in that it improperly shifted the burden. However, a reasonable belief of consent is an affirmative defense because it does not go to a specific element of the charged crime.
D is incorrect. For the reasons stated above, the instruction as to reasonable consent was not unconstitutional, while the instruction as to whether the woman was his wife was unconstitutional.