In this opinion, we are in accord with recent cases from the state of Washington interpreting an identical provision of their state constitution. State v. Wilder, 4 Wn. App. 850, 486 P.2d 319 (1971); State v. Wampler, 3 Wn. App. 378, 475 P.2d 316 (1970); State v. Mellis, 2 Wn. App. 859, 470 P.2d 558 (1970). State v. Bradley, supra, is hereby overruled to the extent that it deviates from this position."
In this opinion, we are in accord with recent cases from the state of Washington interpreting an identical provision of their state constitution. State v. Wilder, 4 Wn. App. 850, 486 P.2d 319 (1971); State v. Wampler, 3 Wn. App. 378, 475 P.2d 316 (1970); State v. Mellis, 2 Wn. App. 859, 470 P.2d 558 (1970). State v. Bradley, supra, is hereby overruled to the extent that it deviates from this position.
Corroboration of the complaining witness is no longer necessary, State v. Clayton, 32 Wn.2d 571, 202 P.2d 922 (1949), and whether the act was performed willingly with the consent of the woman is a question of fact for the jury to decide from all the evidence. State v. Bridges, 61 Wn.2d 625, 379 P.2d 715 (1963); State v. Wampler, 3 Wn. App. 378, 475 P.2d 316 (1970); State v. Mellis, 2 Wn. App. 859, 470 P.2d 558 (1970). Reluctant submission does not imply consent, Hazel v. State, 221 Md. 464, 157 A.2d 922 (1960); nor is the extent of resistance or lack of resistance by the woman other than an item of evidence to be considered by the jury along with all other evidence which bears upon willingness and consent.