Where a complainant clearly communicates non-consent before one sexual act but thereafter remains silent during subsequent acts, a jury may rationally convict on the first count while acquitting on later counts on the basis that the accused may have honestly and reasonably believed the complainant consented to the later acts through apparent acquiescence. The case illustrates that the test for inconsistent verdicts requires only a logical and reasonable reconciliation, not the only possible explanation.
The full text is available to signed-in members.