She Thought It Was Her Boyfriend. It Was a Stranger. The Court Called It Rape.

Wrong Room, Wrong Man

At 5 a.m. on July 27, 2019, at the Gucheng Hotel in Dege County, the bar lights were out. The defendant, called Moumou Zhen here, returned with three friends. His friends went into their room. He did not. He walked to the bar counter and spoke to the waitress. She rejected him. He turned back. Two room doors in the corridor were open. He entered 307.

A woman lay on the bed. He did not know her. He knew he had entered the wrong room. He did not leave. He got into bed. The woman did not resist. She hugged him. She thought he was her boyfriend. When it ended, she saw he was not. She called the police.

The facts are simple. The legal question is not. She did not resist. She even hugged him. That raises the question of consent. If it counts as consent, he is not guilty of rape. If it does not, he is. The court said it does not.

Her consent went to her boyfriend, not to him. What she hugged was the role of boyfriend, not the person Moumou Zhen. She did not know who was in the bed. She thought it was someone she knew, trusted, and would have sex with. That belief was wrong. The defendant knew it was wrong. He did not correct it. He used it.

Article 236 of the Criminal Law defines rape as sex with a woman by violence, coercion, or other means. Violence and coercion are clear. Other means include making a woman unaware of resistance, unable to resist, or afraid to resist. Deep sleep, intoxication, and anesthesia are examples. Using a woman’s mistake about the object is another.

Rape law protects sexual autonomy. Sexual autonomy means a woman decides with whom, when, where, and how to have sex. If she decides to have sex with her boyfriend, the sex is with her boyfriend. If the person who actually has sex is a stranger, her decision has failed. Failed consent is not consent.

Law distinguishes two mistakes. One is a mistake about the object. She thought he was her boyfriend. He was not. That mistake goes to the question of with whom she had sex. It is fundamental. The other is a mistake about motive. She knew who he was, but thought he would marry her, give her money, or help her get promoted. He did not. That mistake does not go to the object of intercourse itself. It generally does not make the act rape. This case is the first kind.

The defendant said, “She did not resist, and she hugged me, which was tacit permission.” This mixes not resisting with consent. A woman may not resist from fear, intoxication, deep sleep, or mistaken identity. Here she did not resist because she thought he was her boyfriend. Her hug was for her boyfriend. It was not permission for the defendant.

The defendant also said, “She and I were mutually willing at the beginning.” That mutual willingness rested on mistaken identity. She was willing for her boyfriend. She was not willing for him. He knew she was mistaken. He had sex with her anyway. That is not mutual willingness. It is using a mistake.

The court found that the defendant knew he had entered the wrong room and did not know the other party. He used the victim’s mistake about the object and had sex against her will. That is rape. He was sentenced to five years in prison. The term runs from July 28, 2019, to July 27, 2024.

Other cases follow the same logic. In Suzhou, a drunk man opened a neighbor’s door by mistake. He saw the woman in bed was not his girlfriend and went along with the mistake. He was sentenced to three years and six months. In Guangdong, an intoxicated woman mistook the perpetrator for her boyfriend. The court found rape. A twin who impersonated his brother and had sex with his brother’s girlfriend was also found guilty of rape. Using a woman’s mistake about the object is against her will.

Some boundaries matter. If the man is also mistaken and thinks the woman is his girlfriend, and he does not know she is mistaken, he lacks the intent to rape. Generally, that is not rape. If the deception is only about motive, such as a false promise to marry, and the woman knows who he is, it generally is not rape. If a woman is intoxicated or deeply asleep and the perpetrator takes the chance to have sex, that is rape. A letter of forgiveness from the woman does not change the conviction. It may affect sentencing. In this case, the defendant refused to plead guilty. The court did not consider the letter of forgiveness or the settlement agreement in sentencing.

The door to room 307 was later closed. The judgment ends with the standard appeal notice: the defendant may appeal within ten days to the Garze Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture Intermediate People’s Court of Sichuan Province.