By Michelle D. Albert [Full Text]
In State v. Baby, the Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the continuation of intercourse through force or threat of force after withdrawal of consent may constitute rape, even if the intercourse began consensually. Finding that the trial court erred by failing to respond clearly to the jury on the effect of post-penetration withdrawal of consent, the Court of Appeals reversed Maouloud Baby’s first degree rape conviction, first degree sexual offense conviction, and two third degree sexual offense convictions, and remanded the case for trial. By extensively analyzing whether to reverse Baby’s rape conviction, the Court of Appeals settled the confusion as to the significance of its previous statement in Battle v. State on the subject of post-penetration withdrawal of consent. With its analysis of Baby’s rape conviction, the Court of Appeals seized the opportunity to declare that Maryland law, in accordance with the weight of authority on this issue, recognizes that forcibly continued intercourse after withdrawal of consent subsequent to penetration constitutes rape. However, because the court did not conduct a comparable examination when deciding whether to reverse Baby’s other convictions, ignoring several compelling arguments, the Court of Appeals improperly reversed Baby’s two third degree sexual offense convictions and thus provided a confounding example for appellate courts.
Citation: Michelle D. Albert, State v. Baby: One Step Forward For Maryland - Protecting a Woman’s Right to Withdraw Consent, But Sending a Conflicting Message to Appellate Courts Reviewing Multiple-Conviction Cases, 68 Md. L. Rev. 1019 (2009).