234 Cal. App. 4th 590
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Andrews was convicted of misdemeanor sexual battery (count 2) and three felonies (counts 3–5) involving a second victim; rape and its lesser-included offense were acquitted for Elizabeth Doe (count 1).
- The Mayberry defense (honest, reasonable mistake of consent) was given for the rape charge but not for count 2, though substantial evidence supported a Mayberry defense to the misdemeanor sexual battery charge.
- The trial court admitted Elizabeth’s and defendant’s conflicting accounts; defendant testified that Elizabeth’s conduct suggested consent, leading to a disputed bodily contact.
- The information was amended during trial; counts and enhancements were adjusted; the court sentenced seven years for count 3 plus enhancements and stayed other sentences under 654.
- On appeal, defendant challenges the lack of a Mayberry instruction for count 2, claims prejudicial ineffective assistance of counsel, and argues the abstract of judgment misstates concurrent/stayed sentences.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment as to count 2, ordered retrial/remedy on that count, and corrected the abstract of judgment to reflect stayed sentences under 654.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Mayberry instruction is required for misdemeanor sexual battery. | Andrews argues substantial evidence supports his Mayberry defense. | Andrews contends Mayberry defense applies to count 2 as it did to rape. | Yes; Mayberry instruction required for count 2. |
| Whether the Mayberry instructional error was prejudicial. | Prosecution argues harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | Error affected jury verdict on count 2. | Prejudicial under Chapman and Watson standards. |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving for acquittal on count 2. | People argue record shows strategic reasons for not moving. | Counsel failed to challenge insufficient evidence. | No ineffective assistance proven. |
| Whether the abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect stayed sentences. | Abstract inaccurately stated concurrency with count 3. | Correction not necessary beyond standard practice. | Abstract must reflect 654-stayed sentences for counts 4 and 5. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Mayberry, 15 Cal.3d 143 (Cal. 1975) (defense of reasonable mistake of consent applies to certain sex offenses)
- People v. Williams, 4 Cal.4th 354 (Cal. 1992) (Mayberry instruction requirements: subjective and objective components)
- People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342 (Cal. 2003) (instructions on defenses require substantial evidence)
- People v. Sojka, 196 Cal.App.4th 733 (Cal. App. 4th 2011) (Mayberry defense analysis in appellate context)
- People v. Dillon, 174 Cal.App.4th 1367 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2009) (instruction on related sexual offenses may be guided by Mayberry)
- People v. Babaali, 171 Cal.App.4th 982 (Cal. App. 4th 2009) (definition of sexual battery and absence of consent)
- People v. Lewis, 25 Cal.4th 610 (Cal. 2001) (substantial evidence can come from a witness including the defendant)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. Supreme Court 1967) (harmless-error standard for instructional errors)