This story is notable, if for nothing else, for the dearth of facts about what actually happened. I looked the case up at www.courtinfo.cal.gov and have posted the "Facts" section from the Supreme Court decision below. The facts are quite different from what the newspaper article claims and may change a few opinions (in both directions).
People v. John Z. (PDF document)
People v. John Z. (WORD document)
On one hand, there was more than sufficient information for both boys to understand that the issue of consent was in question. On the other hand, any girl that tells you that she was on top of the boy for "four or five minutes" and tried to pull out but was unable to do so, is a 24-karat, gold plated, bald faced, liar. As bad as this recitation of facts is, it still does not offer any testimony by the girl saying that she told either boy "no" or "stop" at any time.FACTS The following facts are largely taken from the Court of Appeal opinion in this case. During the afternoon of March 23, 2000, 17-year-old Laura T. was working at Safeway when she received a call from Juan G., whom she had met about two weeks earlier. Juan wanted Laura to take him to a party at defendant’s home and then return about 8:30 p.m. to pick him up. Laura agreed to take Juan to the party, but since she planned to attend a church group meeting that evening she told him she would be unable to pick him up.Sometime after 6:00 p.m., Laura drove Juan to defendant’s residence. Defendant and Justin L. were present. After arranging to have Justin L.’s stepbrother, P. W., buy them alcohol, Laura picked up P. W. and drove him to the store where he bought beer. Laura told Juan she would stay until 8:00 or 8:30 p.m. Although defendant and Juan drank the beer, Laura did not.
During the evening, Laura and Juan went into defendant’s parents’ bedroom. Juan indicated he wanted to have sex but Laura told him she was not ready for that kind of activity. Juan became upset and went into the bathroom. Laura left the bedroom and both defendant and Justin asked her why she "wouldn’t do stuff." Laura told them that she was not ready.
About 8:10 p.m., Laura was ready to leave when defendant asked her to come into his bedroom to talk. She complied. Defendant told her that Juan had said he (Juan) did not care for her; defendant then suggested that Laura become his girlfriend. Juan entered the bedroom and defendant left to take a phone call.
When defendant returned to the bedroom, he and Juan asked Laura if it was her fantasy to have two guys, and Laura said it was not. Juan and defendant began kissing Laura and removing her clothes, although she kept telling them not to. At some point, the boys removed Laura’s pants and underwear and began "fingering" her, "playing with [her] boobs" and continued to kiss her. Laura enjoyed this activity in the beginning, but objected when Juan removed his pants and told defendant to keep fingering her while he put on a condom. Once the condom was in place, defendant left the room and Juan got on top of Laura. She tried to resist and told him she did not want to have intercourse, but he was too strong and forced his penis into her vagina. The rape terminated when, due to Laura’s struggling, the condom fell off. Laura told Juan that "maybe it’s a sign we shouldn’t be doing this," and he said "fine" and left the room. (Although Juan G. was originally a codefendant, at the close of the victim’s testimony he admitted amended charges of sexual battery (§ 243.4) and unlawful sexual intercourse (§ 261.5, subd. (b)), a misdemeanor.)
Laura rolled over on the bed and began trying to find her clothes; however, because the room was dark she was unable to do so. Defendant, who had removed his clothing, then entered the bedroom and walked to where Laura was sitting on the bed and "he like rolled over [her] so [she] was pushed back down to the bed." Laura did not say anything and defendant began kissing her and telling her that she had "a really beautiful body." Defendant got on top of Laura, put his penis into her vagina "and rolled [her] over so [she] was sitting on top of him." Laura testified she "kept . . . pulling up, trying to sit up to get it out . . . [a]nd he grabbed my hips and pushed me back down and then he rolled me back over so I was on my back . . . and . . . kept saying, will you be my girlfriend." Laura "kept like trying to pull away" and told him that "if he really did care about me, he wouldn’t be doing this to me and if he did want a relationship, he should wait and respect that I don’t want to do this." After about 10 minutes, defendant got off Laura, and helped her dress and find her keys. She then drove home.
On cross-examination, Laura testified that when defendant entered the room unclothed, he lay down on the bed behind her and touched her shoulder with just enough pressure to make her move, a nudge. He asked her to lie down and she did. He began kissing her and she kissed him back. He rolled on top of her, inserted his penis in her and, although she resisted, he rolled her back over, pulling her on top of him. She was on top of him for four or five minutes, during which time she tried to get off, but he grabbed her waist and pulled her back down. He rolled her over and continued the sexual intercourse. Laura told him that she needed to go home, but he would not stop. He said, "just give me a minute," and she said, "no, I need to get home." He replied, "give me some time" and she repeated, "no, I have to go home." Defendant did not stop, "[h]e just stayed inside of me and kept like basically forcing it on me." After about a "minute, minute and [a] half," defendant got off Laura.
Defendant testified, admitting that he and Juan were kissing and fondling Laura in the bedroom, but claimed it was with her consent. He also admitted having sexual intercourse with Laura, again claiming it was consensual. He claimed he discontinued the act as soon as Laura told him that she had to go home.
Regards,
Boot Hill
Juan indicated he wanted to have sex but Laura told him she was not ready for that kind of activity.
Laura told them that she was not ready.
She tried to resist and told him she did not want to have intercourse, but he was too strong and forced his penis into her vagina.
Laura "kept like trying to pull away" and told him that "if he really did care about me, he wouldn’t be doing this to me and if he did want a relationship, he should wait and respect that I don’t want to do this."
Its seems to me that this was a girl who wanted to be "cool", liked by guys and not considered a "prude". She wanted to fool around or do who knows what. Her desire to be "cool" stopped her from making correct, prudent decisions, if her desire was truly to not have sex with the guys. She already admitted that two guys asked "why wont you do stuff?". Her going into the bedroom with them, after already knowing what they wanted,in my mind, says she was afraid of not being cool and essentially consented to be "cool"(or is completely lying). She probably in hind site realized she had done something she wished she hadn't and maybe really didn't want to deep down inside. Her story was shaky and its obviuos that her parents pushed this prosecution.
According to the later article, the girl was persistent in her efforts to make the boy stop. While I find it surprising that she didn't escalate rather more in her efforts, her persistence would show a clear and unmistakable intention. I find it puzzling that one of the judges would fail to recognize the relevance of that.
[BTW, perhaps I'm unduly cynical with regard to the California courts, but I would not have been unduly surprised if the majority of judges ruled that two ambiguous utterances over a period of 90 seconds should constitute evidence of non-consent, rather than just evidence of having second thoughts.]
So why'd the question of her saying something that might or might not have meant stop "during" the sex act, ever come up. She said stop before it began. Given these facts I don't know why the boy even bothered to appeal the case.