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
- 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.