Also known as: rapere · rapio · raptus · rape · abduction
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A Latin term formerly used in indictments for rape to allege that the victim was ravished.
Prosecutors charged Roland Rhodes after he raped a convenience-store clerk during a robbery. The old-style indictment opened with the phrase that the defendant rapuit the victim. The jury considered the underlying rape allegation when evaluating the murder count.
Rina Rahman was convicted of raping an adult woman who survived the attack. The indictment used the term rapuit to describe the offense. The court set aside the death sentence because the penalty was disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment when the victim did not die.
Raven Logistics employee Ravi Reddy was accused after he compelled a coworker to submit by threat of serious bodily injury. The historical indictment alleged that Reddy rapuit the victim by force. The prosecution established the elements of compulsion required for the offense.
Regina Robinson faced capital charges after raping a child in a case that neither intended nor resulted in death. The indictment recited that the defendant rapuit the victim. The Supreme Court held the death penalty disproportionate for this non-homicide offense.
Rowan Russell was tried after an alleged rape. The old indictment used rapuit to charge the sexual assault. The prosecution relied on the traditional wording to allege that the victim had been ravished.
On December 27, 1970, Gordon Patterson shot and killed John Northrup in Glens Falls, New York. After a brief and unstable marriage, Patterson had become estranged from his wife Roberta. Roberta had resumed an association with Northrup, a neighbor to whom she had been engaged before her marriage to Patterson. Patterson borrowed a rifle from an acquaintance and went to the residence of his father-in-law. There he observed his wife through a window in a state of semiundress in Northrup's presence. He entered the house and killed Northrup by shooting him twice in the head. Patterson was charged with second-degree murder. At his jury trial in Warren County Court, Patterson raised the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance and presented psychiatric evidence tending to show that he had been extremely emotionally disturbed when he killed Northrup. The jury was instructed that the prosecution had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime of murder. The defendant had the burden of proving the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence. The jury convicted Patterson of second-degree murder. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. While appeal to the New York Court of Appeals was pending, this Court decided Mullaney v. Wilbur. The New York Court of Appeals nevertheless affirmed, distinguishing the Maine statute at issue in Mullaney and holding that New York's allocation of the burden of proof on the affirmative defense was consistent with due process. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to the question whether the burden of proof placed on the defendant by New York law is consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
View caseRenata Russo challenged a statute that criminalized statutory rape only for males. The charging document employed the traditional term rapuit. The court sustained the classification because it was substantially related to preventing teenage pregnancy.
The petitioner, Michael M., was seventeen and one-half years old when, on June 3, 1978, he and two friends approached Sharon, a sixteen-and-one-half-year-old female, and her sister at a bus stop. Petitioner and Sharon had been drinking. They moved away from the others and began to kiss. After petitioner struck Sharon in the face for rebuffing his initial advances, she submitted to sexual intercourse with him. In July 1978, a complaint was filed in the Municipal Court of Sonoma County. The complaint alleged that petitioner had unlawful sexual intercourse with a female under the age of eighteen in violation of section 261.5 of the California Penal Code. Prior to trial, petitioner sought to set aside the information on the ground that the statute unlawfully discriminated on the basis of gender. The trial court denied the motion, and petitioner was convicted after a jury trial. The California Court of Appeal denied petitioner's request for relief.
View caseThe term rapuit is the Latin word for ravished and was used in old indictments to allege that the victim was forcibly violated.
When the indictment alleges rapuit during the commission of robbery or another listed felony, the Model Penal Code presumes the recklessness and extreme indifference required for murder.
No. The Eighth Amendment prohibits capital punishment for the rape of an adult woman when the victim survives, regardless of the wording of the indictment.
The Code requires that the male compel the female victim to submit by force or threat of imminent death, serious bodily injury, extreme pain, or kidnapping.
No. The Eighth Amendment bars capital punishment for the rape of a child when the crime neither intended nor caused the child's death.
…physical deformity or mental deficiency," or that a pregnancy "resulting from legally established statutory or forcible rape or incest may constitute a threat to the mental or physical health of the patient," two other physicians "chosen because of their recognized professional competence have examined the…