A seventeen-year-old girl attended a party with her new boyfriend. Everyone at the party drank alcohol, but she did not. Although the girl said that she was not ready for sex, she engaged in a three-way sexual encounter at the party with her boyfriend and his friend, John. During the encounter, John left the room and the girl and her boyfriend had sexual intercourse. When it was over, her boyfriend left the room and John returned. Wordlessly, John and the girl began having sex. The girl, having second thoughts, rolled on top of John and told him she had to go home. He rolled himself on top of her and responded, “Just give me a minute.” The girl replied, “No. I have to go home.” About one minute later, John stopped the intercourse.
Did John rape the girl, or did she engage in consensual sex? In 2003, the California Supreme Court held that John’s actions constituted a forcible rape. That holding resolved a jurisdictional split and solidified the legal possibility of post-penetration rape as a convictable offense under California’s rape statute. The holding proved controversial, and reactions of approval and disapproval resonated throughout the legal community, media, and general public.4 Reasons for the controversy varied, but two main issues arose: whether courts should recognize post-penetration rape as an offense that is convictable under a rape or sexual assault statute, and if so, based on the facts of In re John Z., whether John actually committed a rape.