Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network

Massachusetts Police News, Information and Discussions on MassCops

Posted by: kwflatbed

(WBZ) BOSTON A woman who had sex with her boyfriend's brother in her darkened room late one night claimed she was raped, saying the man tricked her into the act by impersonating her boyfriend.

But Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court disagreed Thursday, citing a half-century-old state law that says it is not rape when consent to sexual intercourse is obtained through fraud or deceit.

The high court said the state's rape law defines rape as sexual intercourse compelled "by force and against (the) will" of the victim. The court cited a 1959 ruling it made in another case in which it found that fraud cannot be allowed to replace the force required under the law.

The SJC noted that the state Legislature has had "ample opportunity" to change the rape statute to include fraud or deceit, but has not done so.

"Fraudulently obtaining consent to sexual intercourse does not constitute rape as defined in our statute," the court said.

Thursday's ruling came in the case against Alvin Suliveres, a man accused of raping his brother's girlfriend in Westfield in January 2005.

The woman told police she was asleep alone in the bedroom she shared with her longtime boyfriend when a man came in, climbed into bed and had sexual intercourse with her, according to the SJC decision.

The woman said that during the intercourse she believed the man was her boyfriend. Had she known it was the defendant, she would never have consented, she said.

Suliveres claimed the sex was consensual, telling police the woman came to him while he was asleep in another room and invited him to her bedroom to have sex, court documents said.

During his trial, Suliveres asked the judge to find him not guilty, arguing there was not enough evidence for the jury to convict him of rape. The judge denied the motion, and the jury later deadlocked.

Suliveres then asked the court to dismiss the indictment, arguing that because the state had failed to prove its case at the first trial, any retrial would violate the rule against trying someone twice for the same crime.

In its ruling, the SJC sent the case back to Hampden Superior Court to enter an order barring the state from retrying Suliveres.

The current law "compels the conclusion that there was no evidence of rape in this case," the court said in its ruling.

The high court's decision drew sharp criticism from victim advocates.

"If you have sex with someone you didn't agree to have sex with, that's per se nonconsensual," said Wendy Murphy, a Boston attorney who teaches a seminar on sexual violence at the New England School of Law.

"In my opinion, the court really did a disservice to women by preserving the ability of a male to literally obtain sex by fraud," Murphy said.

But Suliveres' lawyer, Brownlow Speer, said the court correctly interpreted the state's rape law.

“This decision means essentially that regardless of what the morality of it is or what the law should be, this is what the law was at the time of this alleged incident," Speer said.

Hampden District Attorney William Bennett said prosecutors in the case had hoped the SJC would overturn its decision in the 1959 case. But he said the court made it clear that it is up to the state Legislature to amend the rape law.

"The statute, as written, requires force and does not allow us to prosecute a case that involves something other than force, such as impersonation," Bennett said.

The court noted in its ruling that in most other jurisdictions where the issue has been considered, courts have found that intercourse by fraud does not constitute rape.

http://wbztv.com/topstories/local_story_130161641.html

---

Posted by: badogg88

I just read this and I am absolutely DISGUSTED!!!! How can that NOT be rape? I understand the difference in the definitions, but come on. It's still non concentual, and therefore it's rape!

I guess I can ikind of see the courts point of view, however. She concented during the act, but afterwards took back the concent. If they give into this statute, someone else will raise the fact that they wanted to have sex during the act, but then afterwards they realized they shouldn't have.

But lying and deceit and trickery, there's got to be a way to charge someone with that. Just freaks me out and disgusts me.

---

Posted by: Nightstalker

Oh Brother!!!!

---

Posted by: JoninNH

Lying? Deceit? Trickery? So the next time you get laid after you tell some chick you're a million dollar rap mongel, and she finds out you sell chicken at KFC, is that rape?

---

Posted by: badogg88

Apparently it's ok, NH, especially here in good ole MA now.

---

Posted by: RPD931

Jon, you got it right. Sorry, I'm not seeing it as rape. I do see it as totally wrong morally, but not rape. If that was my brother, I beat the crap out of him. But there was absolutely no force and nothing making it against her will. She should be a little more aware of who she consents to...

---

Posted by: sempergumby

Sweet Bay Jesus.........Whats the statue of limitations ...............I am in so much SH*T for all the bar hook-ups iv'e done................ohhhhhhh mannnnnnnnnnnnn

---

Posted by: RCPD33

Bottom line.....Pay the fu@k attention to who you bed down with and be responsible and accountable for your own damn actions!!!!!!

---

Posted by: honor12900

Quote:

Originally Posted by RCPD33 Bottom line.....Pay the fu@k attention to who you bed down with and be responsible and accountable for your own damn actions!!!!!!

Completely agree.

---

Posted by: KozmoKramer

Oh Jesus H. Christ..
If I were to be charged for every underhanded, duplicitous ploy I've used in my history to get laid I'd be doing 25 to life in MCI-Yourfucked right now...
Give me a break... The bitch was had; either because she was probably high or drunk when the act commenced, or she was into it and later regretted it.
I was born at night, but it wasn't last night...

Quote:

Fraudulently obtaining consent to sexual intercourse does not constitute rape as defined in our statute," the court said.

Nor should it be.

---

Posted by: Cinderella

Accused Impersonator Freed in Rape Case






BOSTON (AP) - A woman who had sex with her boyfriend's brother in her darkened room late one night claimed she was raped, saying the man tricked her into the act by impersonating her boyfriend.
But Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court disagreed Thursday, citing a half-century-old state law that says it is not rape when consent to sexual intercourse is obtained through fraud or deceit.
The high court said the state's rape law defines rape as sexual intercourse compelled ``by force and against (the) will'' of the victim. The court cited a 1959 ruling it made in another case in which it found that fraud cannot be allowed to replace the force required under the law.
The SJC noted that the state Legislature has had ``ample opportunity'' to change the rape statute to include fraud or deceit, but has not done so.
``Fraudulently obtaining consent to sexual intercourse does not constitute rape as defined in our statute,'' the court said.
Thursday's ruling came in the case against Alvin Suliveres, a man accused of raping his brother's girlfriend in Westfield in January 2005.
The woman told police she was asleep alone in the bedroom she shared with her longtime boyfriend when a man came in, climbed into bed and had sexual intercourse with her, according to the SJC decision.
The woman said that during the intercourse she believed the man was her boyfriend. Had she known it was the defendant, she would never have consented, she said.
Suliveres claimed the sex was consensual, telling police the woman came to him while he was asleep in another room and invited him to her bedroom to have sex, court documents said.
During his trial, Suliveres asked the judge to find him not guilty, arguing there was not enough evidence for the jury to convict him of rape. The judge denied the motion, and the jury later deadlocked.
Suliveres then asked the court to dismiss the indictment, arguing that because the state had failed to prove its case at the first trial, any retrial would violate the rule against trying someone twice for the same crime.
In its ruling, the SJC sent the case back to Hampden Superior Court to enter an order barring the state from retrying Suliveres.
The current law ``compels the conclusion that there was no evidence of rape in this case,'' the court said in its ruling.
The high court's decision drew sharp criticism from victim advocates.
``If you have sex with someone you didn't agree to have sex with, that's per se nonconsensual,'' said Wendy Murphy, a Boston attorney who teaches a seminar on sexual violence at the New England School of Law.
``In my opinion, the court really did a disservice to women by preserving the ability of a male to literally obtain sex by fraud,'' Murphy said.
But Suliveres' lawyer, Brownlow Speer, said the court correctly interpreted the state's rape law.
``This decision means essentially that regardless of what the morality of it is or what the law should be, this is what the law was at the time of this alleged incident,'' Speer said.
Hampden District Attorney William Bennett said prosecutors in the case had hoped the SJC would overturn its decision in the 1959 case. But he said the court made it clear that it is up to the state Legislature to amend the rape law.
``The statute, as written, requires force and does not allow us to prosecute a case that involves something other than force, such as impersonation,'' Bennett said. The court noted in its ruling that in most other jurisdictions where the issue has been considered, courts have found that intercourse by fraud does not constitute rape.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...623975,00.html

---

Posted by: kwflatbed

Pols vow to make deceit a form of rape
By Associated Press
Saturday, May 12, 2007

Two state lawmakers are drafting legislation that would make using deceit to have sex a form a rape.
The move comes a day after the state’s Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a man who tricked a woman into having sex with him could not be convicted of rape because no force was used.
The woman said her boyfriend’s brother climbed into bed with her while she was asleep and pretended to be her boyfriend. She said she would not have consented to sex if she had known who it was.
State Rep. Peter Koutoujian, (D-Waltham), and Sen. Stephen Buoniconti, (D-West Springfield), both former prosecutors, said yesterday they are working with the victims advocate group Jane Doe Inc. to draft an amendment to the state’s rape law.
In its ruling Thursday, the SJC said the use of force is required to convict someone of rape under the state’s current rape law.
The court said it is up to the Legislature to amend the law to include deceit or fraud in the definition of rape.
“Using fraud to engage in sexual activity with another person is clearly rape, and our laws must be changed to reflect this,” Koutoujian said.

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRe...icleid=1000837

---

Posted by: NewEngland2007

What if you say "I love you, baby" without really meaning it, just to get laid?

---

Posted by: screamineagle

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewEngland2007 What if you say "I love you, baby" without really meaning it, just to get laid?

is that wrong?

---

Posted by: Foxy85

"I love you"

Thats the only way I can get laid now....

---

Posted by: mpd61

It's just plain fraud.

---

Posted by: NewEngland2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by screamineagle is that wrong?

Well, it depends.

---

Posted by: lofu

Should have charged him with uttering a false instrument

---

Posted by: Inspector

No No....Charge him with uttering falsely

---

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2008 - Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser