## Facts

- Smith drank alcohol with the complainant, “T,” and invited T and a friend to his apartment to continue socializing.
- The friend never arrived, leaving Smith and T alone in Smith’s apartment.
- While sitting on the couch, Smith put his arm around T and made repeated sexual advances.
- T told Smith multiple times that she did not want to have sex with him.
- Smith was physically imposing, and T felt she could not get away.
- T ultimately submitted to intercourse because she believed she would be hurt if she did not comply.
- After the incident, Smith was arrested and charged with first-degree sexual assault under Connecticut law.
- A jury convicted Smith. He appealed, arguing that the evidence did not prove lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt and that the jury instructions on consent were improper because they did not adequately account for his claimed belief that T consented.

## Issues

1. In a prosecution for first-degree sexual assault, is “consent” determined solely by the complainant’s subjective state of mind, or by the complainant’s words and conduct as reasonably understood under the circumstances?
2. When the defendant claims the complainant consented (or that her conduct signaled consent), must the jury be instructed that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant’s conduct would not have justified a reasonable belief in consent?
3. Was the evidence sufficient to support the jury’s finding of lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt?

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court held that consent in sexual-assault cases cannot be treated as wholly subjective; whether the complainant consented depends on her manifested words and conduct as reasonably construed under the circumstances.
- The court stated that a defendant should not be found guilty based on an undisclosed mental reservation by the complainant where her conduct would reasonably be viewed as indicating consent.
- The court indicated that, once consent is in issue, a defendant is entitled to request a jury instruction that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant’s conduct would not have justified a reasonable belief that she consented.
- Reviewing the record and the jury charge as a whole, the court concluded that the evidence of non-consent was sufficient and that the instructions given were not misleading or legally inadequate.
- The court affirmed Smith’s conviction.

## Legal Principles

- Consent in sexual-assault prosecutions is assessed by the complainant’s outward manifestations—words and conduct—as they would reasonably be interpreted in context; it is not limited to the complainant’s unexpressed internal state.
- A defendant should not be convicted when a complainant’s conduct, under all the circumstances, would reasonably be viewed as indicating consent; hidden reluctance alone is not enough to make otherwise reasonable reliance criminal.
- When consent is disputed, the defendant may request an instruction directing the jury that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant’s conduct would not have justified a reasonable belief in consent.
- First-degree sexual assault is treated as a general-intent offense in this context: the State must prove the defendant intentionally engaged in intercourse and that the complainant did not consent, with the consent inquiry evaluated through the complainant’s manifested conduct.
- On a sufficiency challenge, the appellate court considers whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, permitted the jury to find the elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

In *State v. Smith, 554 A.2d 713 (1989)*, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed a first-degree sexual assault conviction arising from an encounter in which the complainant repeatedly refused sexual intercourse but ultimately submitted out of fear of harm. The court rejected a purely subjective definition of consent and held that consent turns on the complainant’s manifested words and conduct as reasonably construed, cautioning that a defendant should not be convicted based on undisclosed reservations where the complainant’s conduct would reasonably communicate consent. Although the court recognized that a defendant may seek a specific instruction requiring the State to prove the complainant’s conduct would not have justified a reasonable belief in consent, it held that the evidence and the jury instructions in Smith’s case were sufficient and affirmed the judgment.
