Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 12 - Commentary on Whitner v. State

  • from Part II - Gender on Trial
  • Edited by Bennett Capers, Fordham University, New York, Sarah Deer, University of Kansas, Corey Rayburn Yung, University of Kansas
  • Book:
    Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Criminal Law Opinions
    Published online:
    01 December 2022
    Print publication:
    15 December 2022, pp 253-262

  • Summary

    The decision of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts concerned the difficult problem of defining the quantum of intoxication abrogates a person’s ability to consent to sex. The jury convicted a police officer, who was summoned to assist a highly intoxicated person, of rape of that person. However, the high court overturned the conviction, holding that the “wholly insensible” test was too vague to support a legal conviction. Notably, the court offered no alternative to the rejected test, essentially leaving the state without any rule about the degree of intoxication or other incapacitation abrogates consent.