## Facts

- A 21-year-old woman (“Pat”) met Edward Salvatore Rusk at a Baltimore bar near closing time and agreed to drive him to his apartment.
- When Pat declined to go up to the apartment, she testified Rusk took her car keys from the ignition and kept them, making her fearful and uncertain how to leave.
- Pat accompanied Rusk to his one-room apartment in an unfamiliar area.
- Pat testified Rusk pulled her by the arms onto the bed and began undressing her.
- Pat asked whether, if she did what he wanted, he would let her go “without killing” her; she testified he answered “yes,” and she began crying.
- Pat testified Rusk put his hands around her throat and “lightly” choked her before she submitted to oral and vaginal intercourse.
- After intercourse, Pat testified Rusk returned her keys; she left and reported the incident soon thereafter, though she also agreed to see him again.
- Rusk testified the encounter was consensual and denied choking, threats, or use of force.
- A jury convicted Rusk of second-degree rape under a statute requiring intercourse “by force or threat of force against the will and without the consent” of the other person.
- The intermediate appellate court reversed for insufficient evidence; the state’s highest court reviewed that ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient for a rational jury to find intercourse “by force or threat of force,” against the victim’s will, and without consent.
2. Whether the reasonableness of the complainant’s apprehension of fear is determined by the court as a matter of law on sufficiency review or by the jury as a question of fact.

## Decision

- The court reversed the intermediate appellate court and reinstated the jury’s conviction.
- The court held the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, permitted a rational jury to find the elements of second-degree rape beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court held the reasonableness of a rape complainant’s apprehension is a factual question for the jury when there is evidence supporting an inference of reasonable fear attributable to the defendant’s conduct.

## Legal Principles

- On sufficiency review, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, asking whether any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- “Force or threat of force” in rape may be established by circumstances and coercive conduct; it is not limited to severe physical violence.
- A complainant’s submission due to fear does not constitute consent; lack of physical resistance is not dispositive where resistance would reasonably appear futile or increase the risk of harm.
- The reasonableness of the complainant’s apprehension, when supported by evidence, is for the jury to evaluate.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated the rape conviction, concluding that the defendant’s control over the complainant’s keys, the isolation and setting, her expressed fear of serious harm, and the physical act at her throat provided a sufficient basis for the jury to find intercourse compelled by force or threat of force and without consent, with the reasonableness of her fear properly left to the jury.


State v. Rusk, 289 Md. 230, 424 A.2d 720 (Md. 1981)