People v. Ghipriel
1 Cal. App. 5th 828
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Victim (Jane Doe) was a 19–20-year-old, 5'0", ~100 lb employee at defendant Mouris Ghipriel’s Hemet restaurant; Ghipriel was ~54, 5'8", 240 lb and her employer.
- Over months, Ghipriel made repeated sexual advances at work (groping, grabbing, kissing, requests for oral sex) while Doe feared job loss.
- He repeatedly summoned Doe into his very small office, closed/locked the door, grabbed her wrist, pinned her against walls, groped her breasts and buttocks, masturbated (ejaculated on shoe/floor), rubbed his penis on her stomach, and on Oct. 31, 2011 put his hand down her pants and touched the labia (attempted digital penetration but was pushed away).
- Doe reported the assaults to police on Nov. 5, 2011; Ghipriel was arrested and charged with multiple sexual offenses, including three counts each of felony false imprisonment, sexual battery, indecent exposure, assault with intent to penetrate, and two counts of battery for sexual arousal.
- At trial, the jury convicted Ghipriel on the listed counts; he was sentenced to an eight-year prison term and appealed challenging (1) that his false imprisonment convictions should be misdemeanors (insufficient force for felony) and (2) admission of Doe’s testimony about his attempted digital penetration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether force exceeded that reasonably necessary to restrain, making false imprisonment a felony | The People argued the sexual assaults and surrounding circumstances showed force/violence beyond mere restraint, supporting felony false imprisonment | Ghipriel argued the conduct was no more than needed to restrain Doe and thus only misdemeanor false imprisonment | Court held evidence supported felony false imprisonment: sexual acts and power disparity constituted force beyond restraint |
| Whether testimony that defendant attempted digital penetration was admissible | People argued circumstantial evidence supported an intent to penetrate and admission was proper | Ghipriel argued question assumed facts not in evidence and testimony about attempt was improper | Court held the inference of intent to penetrate was supported by circumstances; testimony was admissible |
| Whether counsel’s failure to renew objection to penetration testimony was prejudicial (ineffective assistance) | People argued any failure was not prejudicial because testimony admissible | Ghipriel argued counsel’s failure impacted fairness | Court held no prejudice; no ineffective assistance shown |
| Sufficiency of evidence standard on appeal | People relied on substantial-evidence review supporting jury inferences | Ghipriel argued appellate review should reverse absent unequivocal proof of extra force | Court applied substantial-evidence standard and declined to substitute its view for the jury’s reasonable inferences |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Brown, 150 Cal.App.3d 968 (1984) (standard for appellate review of jury verdicts on sufficiency of evidence)
- People v. Hendrix, 8 Cal.App.4th 1458 (1992) (distinguishes misdemeanor vs. felony false imprisonment based on force required)
- People v. Castro, 138 Cal.App.4th 137 (2006) (force beyond restraint can be shown by pulling victim or by attendant sexual assaults; rejects Matian’s reasoning)
- People v. Matian, 35 Cal.App.4th 480 (1995) (Court of Appeal held similar conduct did not support felony false imprisonment; criticized in later cases)
- People v. Islas, 210 Cal.App.4th 116 (2013) (supports view that sexual assault conduct can establish threat/force for felony false imprisonment)
- People v. Wardell, 162 Cal.App.4th 1484 (2008) (rejects narrow Matian approach; threats can be shown by conduct)
- People v. Aispuro, 157 Cal.App.4th 1509 (2007) (threat or force may be implied by the defendant’s conduct during sexual assaults)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance of counsel requires showing of deficient performance and prejudice)