The Woman Who Cried Rape
Interesting criminal law issue:
Darrell Roberson came home from a card game late one night to find his wife rolling around with another man in a pickup truck in the driveway.
Caught in the act with her lover, Tracy Denise Roberson — thinking quickly, if not clearly — cried rape, authorities say. Her husband pulled a gun and killed the other man with a shot to the head.
What’s the charge? Answer in the extended entry.
The article reports:
On Thursday, a grand jury handed up a manslaughter indictment — against the wife, not the husband.
Via Eugene Volokh, who agrees with the charging decision, and explains why.
Welcome to Texas, where common sense has a strange way of carrying the day.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 4/2/2007 @ 4:08 pmI know this case is going to be talked about from here to the moon — and I’m sure producers reps and agents are already lining things up for the inevitable made-for-Tv movie, but speaking as a civilian I’m not with Eugene on this.
I agree the woman should be charged with something — like making a false claim. But it was the husband who pulled the trigger, not the wife Is he to be let off scot-free? Not even a whatever-degree manslaughter?
David Ehrenstein (2289f8) — 4/2/2007 @ 4:09 pmDateline Arlington. Not too far from your old stomping grounds, Patterico.
Diffus (5999cc) — 4/2/2007 @ 5:22 pmDavid Ehrenstein:
You bet your ass! Totally justifiable homicide. If I caught someone raping my wife and was armed, I would shoot him on the spot. In this county, in this left-wing part of the state (Washington), I would probably be let off scott-free.
brian (574ee6) — 4/2/2007 @ 5:41 pmI testified in a case where the husband came home and discovered his wife en flagrante delicto with another man. He shot the guy, not killing him but screwing him up good. His defense ? He came upstairs, found the two of them in his bed, he had a shotgun on the shootee and the man reached for a bedside table which contained a hand gun. What could he do ? HE shot the guy in self defense with a shotgun. Acquitted in Orange County CA. Twenty years ago.
Mike K (86bddb) — 4/2/2007 @ 5:45 pm“But it was the husband who pulled the trigger, not the wife. Is he to be let off scot-free? Not even a whatever-degree manslaughter?”
You know, last I checked, it was legal to shoot somebody while he was in the process of raping your wife.
Of course, the guy wasn’t actually raping her, *but it’s the wife’s fault that her husband thought the guy was*. Because, you know, she was deliberately crying ‘Rape!’ after he walked in on them to give her husband the wrong impression.
Hence, the charge goes on her, not him.
Chuckg (b682cf) — 4/2/2007 @ 6:17 pmDE –
I think the grand jury’s refusal to bring an indictment against the husband reflects an honest belief that he was acting in good faith in the defense of the bodily integrity of his wife. His wife, however, committed a crime that led to the death of her paramour; is that not the very definition of manslaughter?
Rick Wilcox (71646f) — 4/2/2007 @ 6:28 pmEhrenstein: Man comes home, finds wife in flagrante, and is immediately informed by her that she’s being raped.
Is he supposed to just stand around and offer helpful suggestions to the apparent rapist?
Absent any information that would suggest he might have known she was already overfriendly with the dead man, or that he knew things that should have caused him to question her claim, he did a perfectly rational thing. No blame.
Unless of course you think there is something blameable in using a gun to defend yourself or you family.
kishnevi (ba7408) — 4/2/2007 @ 6:31 pmIs it a crime to scream “rape” when your husband catches you doing another guy?
SPO (62ca0c) — 4/2/2007 @ 6:41 pmSPO, I don’t think it is, but when it leads someone to believe that yes, you are being raped, and you know there’s a good chance he’s got a gun, then you are committing an act of – I would assume – Depraved Indifference.
The main thing here is that they need to show that the wife knew the husband often carried a gun on his person, and thus could reasonably assume he would act in her defense. She made a huge mistake, and is going to pay for it…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/2/2007 @ 7:16 pmI may be a flaming NYC liberal, but I think it’s absolutely correct that the woman be charged with a crime.
dom (3c3994) — 4/2/2007 @ 7:29 pmI’m unclear on the facts: the man comes home and finds his wife and her lover having sex in the bed of the truck. Upon being caught, the lover gets into the truck and tries to drive away.
Was the woman still in the truck??? I think the answer is no, but if it’s “yes,” that would mean the other man was trying to drive away with Mr. Roberson’s wife.
If the wife was outside of the truck and the “rapist” was driving away, why would Mr. Roberson need to shoot? Was he afraid the truck was going to be used as a weapon against him? That there was a gun in the truck? Those are legitimate reasons.
Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 4/2/2007 @ 7:30 pmHas nobody ever heard of the “badger game”? The prosecution may be too hasty in letting the husband off the hook.
nk (37b8ef) — 4/2/2007 @ 7:40 pmDaryl,
Apparently the AP story isn’t clear. Further looking at the facts makes it more clear that she and her “special friend” were in the cab of the truck, and the man was attempting to drive away with her still inside the truck cab.
This brings it into the realm of using force to protect a person/prevent a rape/prevent a kidnapping. He could reasonably assume (unless he knew for 100% certainty she was a cheating lil trollop) that the guy was going to either finish what he started or kill her (or both).
And depending on where the man was standing in relation to the truck (like for example standing in a likely path the truck would travel) it’s also possible self defense.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/2/2007 @ 7:41 pmThe badger game? Nope, new to me…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/2/2007 @ 7:42 pmBadger game. As good a deecription as any.
nk (37b8ef) — 4/2/2007 @ 7:56 pmAhhhhhhhh…
If this is was a version of the Badger Game, it was an epic fail.
You can’t blackmail the dead…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/2/2007 @ 8:01 pmAnother point. In Texas, it is legal to carry a loaded weapon in your vehicle, without having a CCW (do a search for the shooting at Luby’s Restaurant). The husband could have a reasonable belief that the “rapist” had access to a weapon within the cab of the truck.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 4/2/2007 @ 8:01 pmThis is another triumph for common sense. O.J. would not want to commit a crime in this county.
Why isn’t the husband criminally negligent for not knowing that he was married to a lying whore?
nk (37b8ef) — 4/2/2007 @ 8:10 pmBecause unlike some, he wasn’t lucky enough to figure it out BEFORE the wedding…
nk, do I sense a personal story here? 🙂
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/2/2007 @ 8:12 pmNot in the sense I think you mean. I did defend a lot of trash in my misspent youth that I would now shoot on sight, however. There’s a relatively innocent dead man, a killer and a liar. The killer deserves the full attention of the state in my opinion.
nk (37b8ef) — 4/2/2007 @ 8:20 pmFalse report of a felony?
htom (412a17) — 4/2/2007 @ 8:22 pmNK, what sort of law do you practice in IL? 🙂
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/2/2007 @ 8:27 pmFiling false charges is a federal crime i mean they should get 10 years and a 25))) pisaaqua fine
krazy kagu (7c8404) — 4/2/2007 @ 8:34 pmWell … we do have a rule that intent can be inferred from actions. And another that a person intended the natural consequences of his actions. (I lost an attempt murder case with that one.) And I don’t know that in a weird case like this the justification of defense of another person is all that given. BTW: Taking the case at face value, the lady is not guilty of manslaughter either, in my opinion. The connection between her yelling “rape” and her husband shooting the guy is too tenuous for criminal culpability. Basically you need the equivalent “wanton and wilfull” of driving 90 mph in a school zone for involuntary manslaughter.
nk (37b8ef) — 4/2/2007 @ 8:47 pmHere’s Texas’s requirement:
(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect
nk (37b8ef) — 4/2/2007 @ 8:58 pmto circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his
conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a
substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or
the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree
that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard
of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the
circumstances as viewed from the actor’s standpoint.
False report of a felony?
At least in CA, it is a misdemeanor to make a false report to law enforcement. I doubt there’s any crime in making a false report to your husband.
Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 4/2/2007 @ 9:37 pmnk –
So why couldn’t having sex with one’s lover in the driveway of one’s own home, then claiming to be raped when discovered, reasonably be argued to be a “gross deviation from the standard of care an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances”? As if she didn’t have any idea that it was even remotely possible that she might get caught by her husband, or that her husband might shoot the guy if she cried rape…it really does seem to be a willful act (or at least a conscious concession) on her part.
On the topic of the “Badger Game”, I’d be wary of even bringing it up without prima facie evidence that the husband and wife acted in concert, which seems to be currently lacking.
Rick Wilcox (71646f) — 4/2/2007 @ 9:37 pmRick, when you put it that way, it’s enough for an indictment. And possibly enough for civil “preponderance of the evidence”. But “beyond a reasonable doubt”? If I were on the jury I would have to reluctantly vote “not guilty”.
On the “badger game” issue. She enticed him (see the text message), her husband shot him. Did he really shoot him because she cried “rape” or because he was going to the police to report a blackmail attempt? I would want both of them investigated to the minutest detail and interviewed again and again looking for holes in their story. She may take the manslaughter to avoid felony murder.
nk (37b8ef) — 4/2/2007 @ 10:03 pmI think they made this movie already. Screwed Morgan Freeman out of an Oscar due to his being a blackman.
papertiger (a8e044) — 4/2/2007 @ 10:25 pmBunch of racist liberals run Hollywood (like that’s news.)
What would be the charge if a person led another into a situation where they are killed? I’m thinking of the character portrayed by Kathy Bates in Delores Clairborn. She didn’t kill her husband outright, but she sure set the table for his demise.
papertiger (a8e044) — 4/2/2007 @ 10:44 pmIt is undeniably criminal, but is it a crime? What would be the charge?
IANAL but it was my understanding during the several years I lived in Texas that in Texas it’s legal to shoot a suspect fleeing the scene of a felony after dark. Doesn’t matter whether the wife was still in the truck. As far as TX law is concerned preventing a felon from escaping to commit more crimes later is justifiable homicide.
Bill Faith (3cc7e8) — 4/2/2007 @ 11:24 pmnk–she was still in the truck when he tried to drive off. Do you think he would take her to the police station with him to confirm an accusation that she was trying to blackmail him? Seems unlikely, to say the least. The woman deserves to locked up and the key thrown away.
TheManTheMyth (28d602) — 4/3/2007 @ 6:19 amWouldn’t charging her with manslaughter operate on the assumption that she knew her husband would shoot? To me this sounds like a very unstable ground for making such an indictment.
David Ehrenstein (2289f8) — 4/3/2007 @ 6:20 amI don’t think this is a close case, and I think it would go the same way in California.
Crying “rape” when hubby gets home is going to end very badly, and predictably so, for one of the male combatants.
The shooter here acted reasonably, if I’ve got my facts right. Wife made it happen. Under California law, there’s a credible depraved-indifference murder case, though that’s weak; the involuntary manslaughter case is very strong. She should go down in any state at any time.
If this were a law school test question, I’d hope anyone who wants to charge the shooter gets severely dinged for that answer. If someone actually charged him, they’d deserve the scorn they got.
–JRM
JRM (355c21) — 4/3/2007 @ 6:21 amI don’t believe (I may have read wrong) that Texas doesn’t have a statute for “depraved indifference”, and instead has a slightly different legal term…
Any way you slice it, that woman made a fairly sizable error…
Scott Jacobs (90eabe) — 4/3/2007 @ 7:44 amAnd here I thought the “Badger game” was seeing who could sit and listen to badgerbadgerbadger.com the longest before putting an icepick through their earlobe. Learn something new every day, I guess.
PCachu (e072b7) — 4/3/2007 @ 11:33 amJust remember PC… Someday the sun will expand into a Red Giant, enveloping earth and destroying all life…
So yes, some day the badger song WILL get out of your head…
Scott Jacobs (90eabe) — 4/3/2007 @ 11:55 am#34
I think in Texas it is perfectly reasonable to expect the husband to shoot when he hears the cry of rape.
craig henry (88bf66) — 4/3/2007 @ 12:06 pm34
Suppose you yell fire in a crowded theater and someone is trampled to death in the resulting stampede? Do you have to know that would happen to be charged with manslaughter?
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 4/3/2007 @ 12:38 pm#40.
You’d at least be charged with some sort of felony murder…
It’s illegal to yell fire in a public place when there isn’t one (inciting a panic/riot), and the death that results, no matter how unintended, means you are SCREWED…
Scott Jacobs (e3904e) — 4/3/2007 @ 5:00 pm“Wouldn’t charging her with manslaughter operate on the assumption that she knew her husband would shoot?”
No, I think that if she knew he would shoot, then she would be charged with murder.
pst314 (20d3ed) — 4/3/2007 @ 5:59 pmAll I know (if I were married) and my husband walked in on me being raped I think killing him should be the nicest thing that could happen to him.
I don’t think he acted unreasonably. I also think she should be fully responsible since her falsehood led to the death. If she knew he had a gun, and would likely use it, on him then it should be murder.
BTW- If lying to your husband was a crime there’d be a whole lot of women in trouble.
Becky (0fe45a) — 4/3/2007 @ 7:16 pmThere are other other slants to the story. Although I have found none to support my “badger game” theory. The one I just linked does support a “jealous husband” theory though.
nk (37b8ef) — 4/3/2007 @ 7:40 pm*sigh*
We’re all forgetting something… The guy shot the wrong person.
I have little respect for people who screw around behind their spouse’s back, ESPECIALLY with the damned KIDS in the house…
grrrrrrrrrrrr
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/3/2007 @ 7:46 pmnk –
Only in Texas would a UPS guy be considered “of some financial means”, thus meriting subsequent badgering.
I hate Texas… but New Mexico rules.
Leviticus (43095b) — 4/4/2007 @ 7:37 amThe badger game looks chimerical to me now. I have not written off “jealous husband” though. My experience is never take what any perpetrator says at face value.
nk (37b8ef) — 4/4/2007 @ 8:55 am