Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A California appeals court overturned the rape conviction of a man accused of pretending to be a woman's boyfriend when he snuck into her bedroom and had sex with her, concluding that the law doesn't protect unmarried women in such cases.
Citing an obscure state law from 1872, the panel ruled that an impersonator who tricks someone into having sex with him can only be found guilty of rape if he is pretending to be a married woman's husband.
"Has the man committed rape? Because of historical anomalies in the law and the statutory definition of rape, the answer is no, even though, if the woman had been married and the man had impersonated her husband, the answer would be yes," Judge Thomas L. Willhite Jr. wrote in the court's decision.
You would most likely be amazed by the number of archaic and otherwise ridiculous laws still on the books in this country...
Damn. That's an odd one.
You would most likely be amazed by the number of archaic and otherwise ridiculous laws still on the books in this country...
How can someone PRETEND to be someone's boy/girl friend without the "victim" knowing that they are not the right person? Were they blind. And why would a friend have sex with someone they are not married to, unless they are getting paid?
If "No" was said and ignored anyways, then it was rape and should not be gotten away with.
God bless you always!!!
Holly
How can someone PRETEND to be someone's boy/girl friend without the "victim" knowing that they are not the right person? Were they blind. And why would a friend have sex with someone they are not married to, unless they are getting paid?
The facts of the case are not in contention. He was found guilty of raping her by impersonating her boyfriend. His conviction was overturned because the law doesn't allow for boyfriends, only husbands
How can someone PRETEND to be someone's boy/girl friend without the "victim" knowing that they are not the right person? Were they blind. And why would a friend have sex with someone they are not married to, unless they are getting paid?
The facts of the case are not in contention. He was found guilty of raping her by impersonating her boyfriend. His conviction was overturned because the law doesn't allow for boyfriends, only husbands
If he had impersonated a millionaire would it be rape? How about visiting royalty? How about if he was clever about convincing her that he was in love with her?
No means no. We have a clear line of demarcation. A line where even husbands can be convicted of raping his wife if she says no. This woman did not say no. She was fooled. Men are fooled all the time. Every time a man is assured that his girlfriend is using birth control and he still ends up a father that she lied or pretended is no defense.
This case has every mark of this girl got caught boffing some other guy and said "I thought he was you!"
CaféAuLait;6604459 said:Court Frees Rapist, Rules Only Married Women Protected by Law
Calif. Court Finds Single Woman Not Protected By Rape Law - ABC NewsA California appeals court overturned the rape conviction of a man accused of pretending to be a woman's boyfriend when he snuck into her bedroom and had sex with her, concluding that the law doesn't protect unmarried women in such cases.
Citing an obscure state law from 1872, the panel ruled that an impersonator who tricks someone into having sex with him can only be found guilty of rape if he is pretending to be a married woman's husband.
"Has the man committed rape? Because of historical anomalies in the law and the statutory definition of rape, the answer is no, even though, if the woman had been married and the man had impersonated her husband, the answer would be yes," Judge Thomas L. Willhite Jr. wrote in the court's decision.
How in the hell is the law still around?
CaféAuLait;6604459 said:Court Frees Rapist, Rules Only Married Women Protected by Law
Calif. Court Finds Single Woman Not Protected By Rape Law - ABC NewsA California appeals court overturned the rape conviction of a man accused of pretending to be a woman's boyfriend when he snuck into her bedroom and had sex with her, concluding that the law doesn't protect unmarried women in such cases.
Citing an obscure state law from 1872, the panel ruled that an impersonator who tricks someone into having sex with him can only be found guilty of rape if he is pretending to be a married woman's husband.
"Has the man committed rape? Because of historical anomalies in the law and the statutory definition of rape, the answer is no, even though, if the woman had been married and the man had impersonated her husband, the answer would be yes," Judge Thomas L. Willhite Jr. wrote in the court's decision.
How in the hell is the law still around?
The prosecutor elected to charge him with impersonating her husband, not rape. Blame that idiot, not the judge.
We reluctantly hold that a person who accomplishes sexual intercourse by impersonating someone other than a married victim's spouse is not guilty of the crime of rape of an unconscious person," the appeals court ruled.
CaféAuLait;6608948 said:CaféAuLait;6604459 said:Court Frees Rapist, Rules Only Married Women Protected by Law
Calif. Court Finds Single Woman Not Protected By Rape Law - ABC News
How in the hell is the law still around?
The prosecutor elected to charge him with impersonating her husband, not rape. Blame that idiot, not the judge.
NO, that is not what happened, perhaps you need to reread the OP article. He was charged with rape of an unconscious person. BUT the law says she was NOT raped since she was UNmarried. They did not charge him as impersonating her husband, she was not married. If she had been married then he woud have been convicted.
Read more: Julio Morales Rape Case Appeal Ruling - Business InsiderWe reluctantly hold that a person who accomplishes sexual intercourse by impersonating someone other than a married victim's spouse is not guilty of the crime of rape of an unconscious person," the appeals court ruled.
And for the person who keeps says that this was her getting "caught" and regreting sex, the man admitted that he was pretending to be her boyfriend to trick her for sex.
Julio Morales Rape Case Appeal Ruling - Business Insider
"A man enters the dark bedroom of an unmarried woman after seeing her boyfriend leave late at night, and has sexual intercourse with the woman while pretending to be the boyfriend," the court said in its ruling (emphasis ours). "Has the man committed rape? Because of historical anomalies in the law and the statutory definition of rape, the answer is no, even though, if the woman had been married and the man had impersonated her husband, the answer would be yes."
The woman, identified only as Jane Doe, said she woke up in the middle of the night "to the sensation of having sex," which confused her because she and her boyfriend had agreed not to have sex before he left for the night. When she was able to get a glimpse of the man's face, she says, she saw it wasn't her boyfriend but a man named Julio Morales.
Jane says she screamed and tried to push Morales away, and he eventually left the room.
Morales admitted he had sex with Jane and said "he also thought she believed he was her boyfriend," according to the appeals court ruling.
However, Morales' defense team said he didn't remember Jane trying to push him away, and that he did not try and continue having sex after he initially pulled out of her.
