## Facts

- The State charged W.R., Jr., a juvenile, with second-degree rape by forcible compulsion under RCW 9A.44.050(1)(a) based on an incident on January 2, 2011.
- The incident occurred at the home of J.F.’s aunt, where J.F. was visiting and where W.R. lived.
- During the investigation, W.R. denied having intercourse with J.F., but shortly before trial admitted intercourse and asserted it was consensual.
- W.R. testified that J.F. had a crush on him and that they had previously had intercourse; another witness corroborated that J.F. had a crush on W.R.
- J.F. testified she did not consent to the intercourse.
- After a bench trial in juvenile court, the court followed then-existing Washington precedent and placed on W.R. the burden to prove consent by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The juvenile court found W.R. failed to prove consent and adjudicated him guilty; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether due process permits assigning the defendant the burden to prove consent as an affirmative defense to second-degree rape by forcible compulsion.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that due process is violated when the defendant must prove consent in a forcible-compulsion rape prosecution.
- The court overruled prior Washington decisions that allowed placing the burden of proving consent on the defendant.

## Legal Principles

- Due process requires the State to prove every element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
- In second-degree rape prosecutions based on forcible compulsion, consent negates the element of forcible compulsion; the State therefore must prove lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A court may not treat an element-negating matter as an affirmative defense in a way that shifts to the defendant the burden to disprove (or fail to establish) an element.

## Conclusion

Because consent negates forcible compulsion, allocating to the defendant the burden to prove consent permits conviction despite reasonable doubt on an element and violates due process; the adjudication was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial under a constitutionally proper burden of proof.


State v. W.R., Jr., 181 Wash. 2d 757, 336 P.3d 1134 (Wash. 2014)