State v. Rusk
Decision Date | 13 January 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 142,142 |
Citation | 289 Md. 230,424 A.2d 720 |
Parties | STATE of Maryland v. Edward Salvatore RUSK. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen., Baltimore , for appellant.
Ira C. Cooke, Baltimore (Melnicove, Kaufman & Weiner, P. A., Baltimore, on brief), for appellee.
Argued before MURPHY, C. J., and SMITH, DIGGES, ELDRIDGE, COLE, DAVIDSON and RODOWSKY, JJ.
Edward Rusk was found guilty by a jury in the Criminal "A person is guilty of rape in the second degree if the person engages in vaginal intercourse with another person:
Court of Baltimore (Karwacki, J. presiding) of second degree rape in violation of Maryland Code (1957, 1976 Repl.Vol., 1980 Cum.Supp.), Art. 27, § 463(a)(1), which provides in pertinent part:
(1) By force or threat of force against the will and without the consent of the other person; ...."
On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals, sitting en banc, reversed the conviction; it concluded by an 8-5 majority that in view of the prevailing law as set forth in Hazel v. State, 221 Md. 464, 157 A.2d 922 (1960), insufficient evidence of Rusk's guilt had been adduced at the trial to permit the case to go to the jury. Rusk v. State, 43 Md.App. 476, 406 A.2d 624 (1979). We granted certiorari to consider whether the Court of Special Appeals properly applied the principles of Hazel in determining that insufficient evidence had been produced to support Rusk's conviction.
At the trial, the 21-year-old prosecuting witness, Pat, testified that on the evening of September 21, 1977, she attended a high school alumnae meeting where she met a girl friend, Terry. After the meeting, Terry and Pat agreed to drive in their respective cars to Fells Point to have a few drinks. On the way, Pat stopped to telephone her mother, who was baby sitting for Pat's two-year-old son; she told her mother that she was going with Terry to Fells Point and would not be late in arriving home.
The women arrived in Fells Point about 9:45 p. m. They went to a bar where each had one drink. After staying approximately one hour, Pat and Terry walked several blocks to a second bar, where each of them had another drink. After about thirty minutes, they walked two blocks to a third bar known as E. J. Buggs. The bar was crowded and a band was playing in the back. Pat ordered another drink and as she and Terry were leaning against the wall, Rusk approached and said "hello" to Terry. Terry, who was then conversing with another individual, momentarily Rusk asked Pat the direction in which she was driving and after she responded, Rusk requested a ride to his apartment. Although Pat did not know Rusk, she thought that Terry knew him. She thereafter agreed to give him a ride. Pat cautioned Rusk on the way to the car that " 'I'm just giving a ride home, you know, as a friend, not anything to be, you know, thought of other than a ride; ' " and he said, " 'Oh, okay.' " They left the bar between 12:00 and 12:20 a. m.
interrupted her conversation and said "Hi, Eddie." Rusk then began talking with Pat and during their conversation both of them acknowledged being separated from their respective spouses and having a child. Pat told Rusk that she had to go home because it was a week-night and she had to wake up with her baby early in the morning.
Pat testified that on the way to Rusk's apartment, they continued the general conversation that they had started in the bar. After a twenty-minute drive, they arrived at Rusk's apartment in the 3100 block of Guilford Avenue. Pat testified that she was totally unfamiliar with the neighborhood. She parked the car at the curb on the opposite side of the street from Rusk's apartment but left the engine running. Rusk asked Pat to come in, but she refused. He invited her again, and she again declined. She told Rusk that she could not go into his apartment even if she wanted to because she was separated from her husband and a detective could be observing her movements. Pat said that Rusk was fully aware that she did not want to accompany him to his room. Notwithstanding her repeated refusals, Pat testified that Rusk reached over and turned off the ignition to her car and took her car keys. He got out of the car, walked over to her side, opened the door and said, " 'Now, will you come up?' " Pat explained her subsequent actions:
It was then about 1 a. m. Pat accompanied Rusk across the street into a totally dark house. She followed him up two flights of stairs. She neither saw nor heard anyone in the building. Once they ascended the stairs, Rusk unlocked the door to his one-room apartment, and turned on the light. According to Pat, he told her to sit down. She sat in a chair beside the bed. Rusk sat on the bed. After Rusk talked for a few minutes, he left the room for about one to five minutes. Pat remained seated in the chair. She made no noise and did not attempt to leave. She said that she did not notice a telephone in the room. When Rusk returned, he turned off the light and sat down on the bed. Pat asked if she could leave; she told him that she wanted to go home and "didn't want to come up." She said, " 'Now, (that) I came up, can I go?' " Rusk, who was still in possession of her car keys, said he wanted her to stay.
Rusk then asked Pat to get on the bed with him. He pulled her by the arms to the bed and began to undress her, removing her blouse and bra. He unzipped her slacks and she took them off after he told her to do so. Pat removed the rest of her clothing, and then removed Rusk's pants because "he asked me to do it." After they were both undressed Rusk started kissing Pat as she was lying on her back. Pat explained what happened next:
Pat testified that Rusk made her perform oral sex and then vaginal intercourse.
Immediately after the intercourse, Pat asked if she could leave. She testified that Rusk said, " 'Yes,' " after which she got up and got dressed and Rusk returned her car keys. She said that Rusk then "walked me to my car, and asked if he could see me again; and I said, 'Yes; ' and he asked me for my telephone number; and I said, 'No, I'll see you down Fells Point sometime,' just so I could leave." Pat testified that she "had no intention of meeting him again." She asked him for directions out of the neighborhood and left.
On her way home, Pat stopped at a gas station, went to the ladies room, and then drove "pretty much straight home and pulled up and parked the car." At first she was not going to say anything about the incident. She explained her initial reaction not to report the incident: "I didn't want to go through what I'm going through now (at the trial)." As she sat in her car reflecting on the incident, Pat said she began to She reported the incident to the police at about 3:15 a. m. Subsequently, Pat took the police to Rusk's apartment, which she located without any great difficulty.
Pat's girlfriend Terry corroborated her testimony concerning the events which occurred up to the time that Pat left the bar with Rusk. Questioned about Pat's alcohol consumption, Terry said she was drinking screwdrivers that night but normally did not finish a drink. Terry testified about her acquaintanceship with Rusk:
Officer Hammett of the Baltimore City Police Department acknowledged receiving Pat's rape complaint at 3:15 a. m. on September 22, 1977. He accompanied her to the 3100 block of Guilford Avenue where it took Pat several minutes to locate Rusk's apartment. Officer Hammett entered Rusk's multi-dwelling apartment house, which contained at least six apartments, and arrested Rusk in a room on the second floor.
Hammett testified that Pat was sober, and she was taken to City Hospital for an examination. The examination disclosed that seminal fluid and spermatozoa were detected in Pat's vagina, on her underpants, and on the bed sheets recovered from Rusk's bed.
At the close of the State's case-in-chief, Rusk moved for a judgment of acquittal. In denying the motion, the trial court said:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Barnes
...Cal.App.3d at pp. 194, 198, 139 Cal.Rptr. 675; People v. Harris (1951) 108 Cal.App.2d 84, 89, 238 P.2d 158; see also State v. Rusk (1981) 289 Md. 230, 424 A.2d 720, 726-727 and cases cited therein at fn. 3.) 20 In the words of one commentator, the trier of fact "should be permitted to measu......
-
State v. Burke
..."threats of force need not be made in any particular manner in order to put a person in fear of bodily harm * * *." State v. Rusk, 289 Md. 230, 246, 424 A.2d 720, 728 (1981); see also People v. McGill, 131 Mich.App. 465, 346 N.W.2d 572 (1984); Dumer v. State, 64 Wis.2d 590, 219 N.W.2d 592 (......
-
State v. Tison
...S.E.2d 917 (1979); State v. Voiles, 226 Kan. 469, 601 P.2d 1121 (1979); State v. Abercrombie, 375 So.2d 1170 (La.1979); State v. Rusk, 289 Md. 230, 424 A.2d 720 (1981); State v. Barbour, 43 N.C.App. 143, 258 S.E.2d 475 (1979); Holt v. State, 591 S.W.2d 785 (Tenn.Cr.App.1979). Our review fun......
-
Bloodsworth v. State
...U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). See Branch v. State, 305 Md. 177, 182-83, 502 A.2d 496, 498 (1986); State v. Rusk, 289 Md. 230, 240, 424 A.2d 720, 725 (1981); Tichnell v. State, 287 Md. 695, 717, 415 A.2d 830, 842 (1980). (Emphasis in Id. at 167, 512 A.2d 1056. On July 25, 1......
-
§ 33.04 Rape: Actus Reus
...347, 355 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). But see § 33.04[B][2][b], infra, to see how the definition of "force" is changing.[70] State v. Rusk, 424 A.2d 720, 733 (Md. 1981) (Cole, J., dissenting).[71] People v. Dohring, 59 N.Y. 374, 386 (1874). [72] King v. State, 357 S.W.2d 42, 45 (Tenn. 1962).[73] P......
-
§33.04 RAPE: ACTUS REUS
...347, 355 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). But see § 33.04[B][2][b], infra, to see how the definition of "force" is changing.[70] . State v. Rusk, 424 A.2d 720, 733 (Md. 1981) (Cole, J., dissenting).[71] . People v. Dohring, 59 N.Y. 374, 386 (1874).[72] . King v. State, 357 S.W.2d 42, 45 (Tenn. 1962).[......
-
The feminist challenge in criminal law.
...Taking Sexual Autonomy Seriously: Rape Law and Beyond, 11 L. & Phil. 35, 36-40 (1992). (76) See id. at 38-39. (77) See State v. Rusk, 424 A.2d 720 (Md. 1981). (78) See id. at 728. (79) See State v. Alston, 312 S.E.2d 470 (N.C. 1984). (80) See id. at 475-76. (81) See, eg., Estrich, supra......