In a sexual assault case, what is the current state of the law on consent?

Defendant maintains that because the victim did not resist, this "certainly provided circumstantial evidence that [defendant] reasonably believed she was consenting." It is hardly the case, however, that the fact a victimafter being accosted from behind, threatened to keep still, and thrown up against a wall by a strangeraccedes to the threat and does not resist, can signal consent to anal sex. (See People v. Ireland (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 328, 338 [when defendant drew a knife as he commenced raping prostitutes, thereby expressly or impliedly threatening his victims, "the previously given consent no longer existed, either in fact or in law"].) Rather, it signals abject terror. It is

Page 5