wow. so many armchair lawyers.
rape as i was taught under CA penal code generally followed along these lines.
elements required:
1) the sexual act (not in question the the case)
2) without consent, or victim is unable to give consent. (includes drunk, under the influence of drug, unconscious, mental retardation, under age, etc)
intent and mens rea for these types of felony are usually general intent. you do the act, then you had the intent. negligence is rarely an excuse.
for all those who think McDowel should go free: what happens if he gets the address wrong? barges into some neighbor's house and proceeds to rape resident. all the time the victim is saying "no". a reasonable person would stop. a reasonable person wouldnt be there in the first place.
a reasonable person would have met with the "supposed" sex partner beforehand (face to face) and made sure everything was kosher. what if a child was present when he barged in, should he have just gone thru with it? if a reasonable person would stop to check because the child being there was a red flag, then even if a child wasn't there you should be doing the due diligence on the consent.
that's why when JohnofSheffield says "no" is the final word, it is. if there is any doubt about consent, you are already looking to be treated as a rapist. better to spend a night alone than 6 months in court or more in prison.