Also known as: absent consent · lack of consent · no consent
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A state in which a person has not given voluntary agreement to particular conduct or contact. The condition defeats defenses that would otherwise shield the actor from liability for battery or sexual assault.
A state's failure to agree to being sued by its own citizens in federal court.
A state in which a person has not given voluntary agreement to particular conduct or contact. The condition defeats defenses that would otherwise shield the actor from liability for battery or sexual assault.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A state's failure to agree to being sued by its own citizens in federal court.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Austin Abbott engaged in sexual penetration with Angela Acosta after she told him she did not want to be touched and tried to leave his tent. The prosecution proved that Acosta never gave voluntary agreement. The absence of consent satisfied the compulsion element, supporting conviction for sexual assault in the second degree.
Alfred Ashford forcibly compelled his wife to engage in intercourse. The state charged rape. Because the wife had not given voluntary agreement, the absence of consent removed any marital exemption and permitted conviction under the general rape statute.
Statutes define compulsion to include absence of consent, requiring the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim did not voluntarily agree to the penetration and that the defendant knew of that lack of consent. Consent may be expressed or implied, so the prosecution must show that neither form existed.
Supporting sources
No. Consent is effective only for the particular conduct authorized. When a physician removes a different lesion than the one listed on the form, the extra procedure occurs without consent and supports liability for battery even though the patient signed a form for the original procedure.
Supporting sources
Andrew Avery, a resident of State X, filed a federal suit against State X seeking back wages under a federal statute. State X moved to dismiss on sovereign-immunity grounds. Because Avery is a citizen of the defendant state and the state never consented to the suit, the federal court lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss the damages claim.
The jurisdictional bar applies to suits by a state's own citizens against that state unless the state has consented or Congress has validly abrogated immunity. Without consent the federal court lacks power to hear the damages action.
Supporting sources
…that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law when the defendant testifies to consent and the complainant testifies to no consent, they are also wrong. Their premise is that, in a credibility contest between the defendant and the complainant, the jury must accept in toto the testimony of one and reject in toto the…