Assault, 66 N.C. L.Rev. 1177, 1185 (1988). “Our holding in this case establishes a mechanism by which the unique relationship between children and the adults who exercise a position of domination and control over them may be taken into consideration in determining whether the element of forcible compulsion has been established. To hold otherwise would be to require a child to be mangled, to see a deadly weapon, or to hear the actual utterance of specifically threatening words before a jury would be authorized to discern a rational fear of violence. Making these criteria absolute would be ignoring reality. See McQueen v. State, 423 So.2d 800 (Miss.1982) (Hawkins, J., dissenting).” Powe, 597 So.2d at 728-29 (emphasis added). See also Howell v. State, 636 So.2d 1260, 1263 (Ala.1993) (<HOLDING>). In B.E. v. State, 778 So.2d 863
holding that a finding that a party willfully misused the protection from abuse process was not binding on the court in a subsequent divorce action because when determining parental rights and responsibilities a court  must make an independent examination of the totality of the circumstances after hearing fresh evidence holding that taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances the 20yearold stepdaughter victim continued to be subject to howells parental authority and thus the evidence was minimally sufficient to support jurys finding of forcible compulsion holding that under the totality of the circumstances the facts provided sufficient support to defeat a motion to dismiss despite being broad allegations holding that before a defendant is entitled to introduce evidence of the victims character for violence there must be sufficient evidence to support a finding that the victim was the first aggressor and that once the defendant testified that he was attacked and cut by the victim without provocation before using the victims utility tool to stab the victim the defendant was clearly entitled to question the victim about past acts of violence reflected in court documents from the state of oregon holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jurys conclusion that west retaliated against arban for taking leave under the fmla