Published on:

Court reviewed the meaning of consent in the context of an incapacitated complainant. People v. Worden, 980 N.Y.S.2d 317 (N.Y. 2013)


Rape in the third degree in New York occurs when a person engages in sexual intercourse with another person without that person’s consent. This lack of consent can result from various factors, such as the victim being unable to give consent due to incapacitation from drugs or alcohol. Additionally, if the victim clearly expresses unwillingness to engage in sexual activity, and a reasonable person would understand their refusal, it constitutes lack of consent. Rape in the third degree is a serious criminal offense under New York law and carries significant legal consequences upon conviction.

In People v. Worden, 980 N.Y.S.2d 317 (N.Y. 2013), the issue before the court related to the definition of consent where the complainant was incapacitated after taking medication.

Background Facts
The defendant faced charges of third-degree rape stemming from sexual encounters with his former girlfriend while she was under the influence of medication.¬†According to the complainant’s testimony before the grand jury, she alleged that the defendant initiated sexual intercourse without her consent on two separate occasions. She stated that during these incidents, she was under the influence of psychotropic medication, which resulted in her being in a deep sleep-like state. Despite her verbal objections upon awakening during each incident, the defendant persisted in engaging in sexual intercourse with her. The complainant emphasized that she did not consent to these sexual encounters and that the defendant proceeded despite her objections. This testimony formed the basis of the allegations against the defendant, leading to legal proceedings and ultimately, his guilty plea to one count of third-degree rape.

Whether the defendant’s guilty plea was based on a sufficient factual basis to support the conviction for third-degree rape.

The court holds that the guilty plea was not sufficiently supported by the factual allocution, thus requiring the vacating of the plea and further proceedings in the case.

The court’s decision hinges on the understanding of consent under the relevant statute. Despite the complainant’s assertions of non-consent during the incidents, there was confusion surrounding the definition of consent as it pertained to the defendant’s plea. The court found that the defendant’s statements during the plea allocution contradicted an essential element of the crime of third-degree rape.

The defendant’s misunderstanding of the concept of consent was central to the court’s decision. During the plea allocution, the defendant’s statements revealed a belief that the complainant’s incapacitation due to medication did not negate her ability to consent to sexual activity. Instead, the defendant appeared to interpret consent as merely the absence of explicit refusal or resistance from the complainant. This interpretation contradicted the statutory definition of consent under the relevant law, which specifies that consent cannot be given if the individual is incapable of doing so due to factors other than incapacity.

The defendant’s erroneous understanding of consent was evident in his statements that the complainant, despite being under the influence of medication and experiencing a deep sleep, did not verbally object to the sexual intercourse. This belief, coupled with the defendant’s assertion that the complainant had been awake and aware to some extent during the encounters, led him to conclude that her silence or lack of resistance constituted consent. However, such an interpretation fails to consider the statutory requirement that consent must be affirmatively and clearly expressed, particularly in cases involving incapacitation.

Furthermore, the court determined that the misinterpretation of the concept of consent was pervasive throughout the proceedings, indicating a failure to ensure that the defendant fully understood the nature of the charge to which he was pleading guilty.

An allocution is a formal statement made by a defendant in a criminal case in which they admit to the facts of the case. When it pleading guilty to a crime, it is critical that the defendant understands what they are pleading guilty to.¬† That’s the purpose of the allocution.¬† The law requires that a guilty plea be based on a clear understanding of the charges and the elements of the crime. However, during the plea allocution, the defendant’s statements revealed a misunderstanding of the concept of consent under the relevant statute.

Posted in:
Published on:

Comments are closed.

Contact Information