In People v. Sojka, 2011 Cal.App. LEXIS 733 (2011), a case decided in June but, apparently, not reported by the news media, a California appellate court reversed John F. Sojka’s conviction for attempted rape by force. The court's opinion is "must reading" for anyone who follows these issues because it illustrates a fundamental and crucial principle: there is no rape if the defendant reasonably believed the woman consented.
Mr. Sojka met his accuser early one evening in a bar. The two struck up a conversation and Sojka bought her a beer. One beer led to another, and the two left and went to another bar where they socialized with other patrons, continued drinking, and played pool until about midnight. Over the course of the evening Sojka and the accuser were mildly amorous with one another. They left the bar and Sojka offered to give the accuser a ride home. He says that once the two got into his car, they kissed and caressed each other for about 15 minutes. The accuser does not remember doing so, but recalled being affectionate with Sojka and not at all apprehensive about him. He was feeling good about her, and thought the two might have sex.
Their accounts of what happened once they arrived at the woman's apartment are starkly different. It is well to note that this was a classic "he said/she said" case. According to the appellate court: “The evidence concerning the sexual interaction between Sojka and his victim was hotly disputed . . . .” She claimed he raped her despite her protestations.Sojka, on the other hand, testified that the two started kissing, removed each other's clothes and dropped to the floor. He fondled her and performed oral sex on her. She seemed excited, and was moaning a little bit, indicating she was enjoying their foreplay. She did not complain, resist or act like she wanted him to stop. Sojka climbed on top of her to initiate sexual intercourse, but she pushed him and yelled at him to stop. He got up, put his clothes on and left the apartment.
She called her boyfriend and best friend, went to bed, then called 911 shortly after 5:00 a.m. Despite the "he said/she said" nature of the accounts, Sojka was convicted of attempted rape by force and was sentenced to three years in prison.
The appellate court reversed because the jury was misinformed about the law of consent. The court explained that there is no rape if there was substantial evidence of equivocal conduct on the part of the complainant that would have led a defendant to reasonably and in good faith believe consent existed where it did not. If there is such evidence, the jury should be instructed about the law of mistake.
In fact, the prosecution misled the jury to believe that the law was much simpler: the prosecutor told the jury that either she consented or she didn't, and Sojka's belief about whether she did -- regardless of whether his belief was reasonable -- was irrelevant.
The court held that the trial court's failure to instruct on the potential effect of Sojka's good faith but mistaken belief was prejudicial to Sojka, and it reversed the conviction.
The court's holding is merely another way of stating that the accuser's subjective or secret intentions, desires, or whims do not matter if her outward manifestations of assent, even if equivocal, led the defendant to reasonably believe she consented. In other words, "unwanted sex," in and of itself, does not necessarily mean that rape was committed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
How can a jury interpret "he stopped and left after she said no" as rape? That's nuts.
Bravo!
Note, however, that homefacts.com still lists him as a registered sex offender.
Based on the information related by the appellate court, this is scarcely the type of case that should be left for a jury to decide. A prosecutor doesn't do justice by rolling the dice on a doubtful rape case and hoping to get "lucky" with a man's life. A jury may be swayed by prejudices and should never get a doubtful case.
It is also frightening that a man would be sentenced to three years in prison, and be placed on a sex offenders registry, over a confused, he said/she said sexual romp.
With that said, if indeed the woman's manifestations of willingness to proceed were equivocal, this isn't a romp that should be defended. It's not rape, but it is a byproduct of a society too promiscuous, too accepting of the hook-up culture, too willing to think that the virtuous life is something only backward people practice. And I am not just criticizing the man. If that sounds old fashioned, I know it is. Most of these messy cases we cover would go away if people could exercise a modicum of self-respect when they meet an attractive stranger, instead of behaving like drunken, rutting animals.
Sometimes I feel like I need to take a shower after reading some of these things. Here endeth the sermon.
All these new perversions that are being enacted to enable false rape accusers are ok right??? because its just hetero-sexual sex that is being made a legal jeopardy.
Archivist, who’s mellowing – you or me? I find myself agreeing with you more and more lately.
This he/she case should never have gone to trial, although my reasoning differs from yours. The woman obviously consented to his advances from the getgo including oral sex, then stopped just short of intercourse, or so she claims. That’s what I call a “tease”. There’s something morally taboo about leading a man on just to leave him hanging. So in my opinion, the issue of unwanted sex is beside the point. I realize the law does not reflect “teasing”, but I’m glad the judge and jury found a loophole around it.
Also, the sex offenders registry cries out for reform. There are far too many variables to lump all rapists into a single category.
I can only speak for myself, commenter who won't give his name: my views on this subject haven't changed.
She called her boyfriend right away, lol.
Okay so she went out and was flirting and having a good time, getting another male's attention. She had a good time with him and started to feel guilty thus she told him no, and then quickly called her boyfriend to tell him a guy tried to rape her = Instant Victim Status! What the hell is this girl doing out meeting other men and nearly fucking them when she has a 'boyfriend'?
Isn't it great us Males have to not only initiate with the female half but then we have to read all her ques to a tee, and if she decides at any point she feels guilty about her decisions/actions that she made as a consenting adult, then we are left holding the the line for it and have to prove our innocence. Good grief. Yeah women mature faster, lol. Do they mature at all?????
Cdub, picking up women in bars for one nighters is also very immature.
As is picking up men in bars (really both of them picked up the other, why is that so hard to understand?)
Nice try on derailing the argument you annomyous twit.
Picking up people in bars is immature? According to who? It is an act of people's free will to meet and congregate where they please, there is nothing necessarily immature about meeting someone at a bar. Some folks have one night stands out of the deal, some folks fall in love out of the deal. Who cares, again you are trying to pin some sort of blame on the man in this situation, when a poster after made the point that both men and women go to pickup each other at bars out of their own free will.
The only thing immature about this is that this woman had remorse over her sexual experience with this man, and maybe guilt about cheating on her boyfriend. So instead of doing what a sensible person would have done in either coming clean and telling her boyfriend of what she did, or not telling him at all and living with the guilt, she decided to put the other guy thru the ringer to ease her own conscious, and justify her own behavior to appear to be a victim in her own eyes and the eyes of others.
So basically what it comes down to is it's her world and everyone else is living in it. And that's the way it's been for too long, and that shit is going to change NOW! Got it? Now move along.
One more thing to add....so girls that are picked up at other locations don't lie about rape? Is that what you are implying? If you pick up a girl in a bar there is a good chance she will accuse you of something? But picking up girls at say the mall, library, a sporting event, church, etc. a man will have nothing to worry about. Geez he really should have known better shouldn't he have, this all obviously his fault...lol. Your little hamster wheel spins up some good ones in your head doesn't it.....run along now.
Anonymous said...
Cdub, picking up women in bars for one nighters is also very immature.
Stuff yourself. It's not immature in the least.
What is immature is using the word immature for that. Childish in fact.
Just cause you're no good at it doesn't mean mature guys don't succeed at doing it with hot girls all the time.
I thoroughly get the court's ruling and the logic and law behind it.
However, further, I think "attempted" rape should be brought as a charge only in rare circumstances. I mean the guy stopped voluntarily and didn't rape her. Three years and a felony conviction if he didn't stop in the first nano second in trying to win over her consent is just WRONG.
Girls say no before they say yes all the freakin time especially when it's the first time with a particular guy and especially if it's a first or early date. So in this case if say she had said a mild no when he first started to try to undress her and he admitted to the jury that was the case, but then a minute or two later when she said no more forcefully he stopped trying to take her clothes off and have sex -- he should get a felony conviction and three years in jail for THAT?????? That's absurd.
Now if a guy doesn't go through with forceable rape because someone scared him off, or she succeed in running away from him, well that's different.
Post a Comment