## Facts

- Gordon R. Robinson III was tried in the Maine Superior Court (Penobscot County) and convicted by a jury of Class A rape under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 252(1)(B).
- The complainant testified Robinson came to her home late at night claiming he needed to use the telephone after running out of gas; she let him inside.
- The complainant testified that after sitting together, Robinson began a struggle and forced sexual intercourse against her will.
- Robinson testified he did not enter the home, and alternatively asserted that any sexual activity was consensual until the complainant said she did not want to continue, at which point he stopped and left.
- During deliberations, the jury asked whether intercourse that begins consensually becomes rape if one person says “no” and the other continues.
- The trial judge gave a supplemental instruction: if consent is revoked and communicated, and the other person continues intercourse “by compulsion,” it is rape; the judge stressed the “critical element” is continuation under compulsion.
- Defense counsel did not object to the supplemental instruction.

## Issues

1. Whether the supplemental jury instruction incorrectly stated Maine law by permitting a rape finding where intercourse began consensually but consent was later revoked.
2. Whether any defect in the unobjected-to supplemental instruction constituted “obvious error” requiring reversal.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the supplemental instruction correctly stated the law: consent may be withdrawn, and intercourse can become rape if continuation occurs by compulsion after communicated revocation.
- Because the instruction was correct, there was no “obvious error” warranting relief despite the lack of a contemporaneous objection.

## Legal Principles

- Under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 252(1)(B), the State must prove sexual intercourse occurred “by compulsion” as defined by Maine’s Criminal Code.
- Consent to sexual intercourse is revocable; initial consent does not bar a rape conviction for compelled continuation after consent is withdrawn and communicated.
- A jury instruction addressing revocation of consent is proper if it ties criminal liability to the statutory requirement that the continuation be accomplished by compulsion.
- Unpreserved instructional claims are reviewed only for “obvious error,” requiring a fundamental defect that seriously affects the fairness and integrity of the trial.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Robinson’s rape conviction, ruling that the jury was properly instructed that a participant may revoke consent during intercourse and that rape may occur when the other person continues by compulsion after the revocation is communicated, and finding no obvious error in the unobjected-to instruction.


State v. Robinson, 496 A.2d 1067 (Me. 1985)