Quote:
Originally Posted by GullFoss
"The jury is expected to hear from some witnesses that the complainant was at times offering to perform sexual acts or asking whether anyone was going to have sex with her, Donkers said. "
This is the part the defense is going to push on. If you're offering to perform sexual acts, doesn't that imply consent? I can see a scenario where the players can suggest "I thought the girl was really into nympho, exhibitionist, group sex and between what McLeod told me and what the girl said...it was implied consent."
|
There is no such thing as "implied consent". There is no such thing as "advance consent". The issue is whether the complainant was consenting to the sexual activity when it was happening.
If she was an active, willing participant to the sexual activity and had capacity to consent, she was consenting.
If she was not an active, willing participant (somewhere on the spectrum of passive acceptance and active resistance) and testifies that she did not consent, then the issue is whether the defendants honestly but mistakenly believed that she was consenting and whether they took reasonable steps to ascertain that consent in the circumstances.
(NOTE: I don't practice criminal law so fully expect [and invite] MBates or others to correct or refine my very brief summary.)