91 Cal.App.5th 749
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- Victim (Chelsea) was 16; she left a hair appointment with codefendants Sangalang and Middleton and was taken to a van and later to Middleton’s apartment complex.
- Boles sexually assaulted and raped Chelsea in an apartment laundry room while Sangalang and Middleton were present; DNA linked Boles to semen recovered.
- Middleton supervised Chelsea, took her belongings and phone, instructed her in street prostitution (pricing, locations, condom use), and facilitated contact with potential clients.
- Charges against Middleton included attempted human trafficking of a minor for a commercial sex act (Pen. Code §236.1(c), attempt prong), false imprisonment (misdemeanor), and rape in concert as an aider and abettor (§264.1(a)).
- At trial the court instructed that mistake of fact as to the victim’s age is not a defense (§236.1(f)); the jury convicted Middleton on the above counts; sentence totaled 9 years 8 months.
- On appeal Middleton argued instructional error (intent/age and rape‑in‑concert definition) and insufficiency of the evidence for her convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attempted human trafficking of an actual minor requires specific intent as to the victim’s age or whether mistake‑of‑fact as to age is a defense | Subdivision (f) bars a mistake‑of‑fact defense when the victim is an actual minor; specific intent as to age is not an element for attempts against actual minors | Moses I requires specific intent re age for attempt charges; the jury should have been instructed that mistake as to age could negate intent for attempt | Court: Subdivision (f) removes mistake‑of‑fact as to age when the victim is a minor, so specific intent as to the victim’s minority is not an element for the attempt prong; no instructional error. |
| Whether the rape‑in‑concert instruction erroneously allowed conviction based on duress/menace/fear rather than "force or violence" | CALCRIM wording (forcible rape instruction) conveyed the need for rape by force; instruction was legally adequate | Middleton: section 264.1 requires "force or violence," and the jury was improperly told alternate bases (duress/menace/fear) could suffice | Court: No error; jurors would understand "forcible rape" to require force; any potential ambiguity was forfeited or harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence showed rape by force. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted human trafficking (intent to effect/maintain pandering) | Evidence showed Middleton taught Chelsea prostitution techniques, supervised her, withheld phone/food, facilitated client contacts—establishing intent to pander | Middleton: insufficient proof of intent to pander; she was a fellow victim and acted under others’ control | Court: Substantial evidence supported intent to effect/maintain pandering and the attempt conviction. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for rape in concert (aiding and abetting) | Middleton led Chelsea to where Boles awaited, returned her to the laundry room, remained and told her to be quiet—showing knowledge, intent, and aiding | Middleton: insufficient proof she acted voluntarily or with intent to aid the rape; she was coerced and a trafficking victim herself | Court: Substantial evidence supported that Middleton knowingly and voluntarily aided and abetted Boles’s forcible rape. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Moses, 10 Cal.5th 893 (2020) (Moses I) (attempt to induce decoy-police addressed; specific intent requirement for attempts where target is not an actual minor)
- People v. Moses, 65 Cal.App.5th 14 (2021) (Moses II) (on remand: subdivision (f) precludes mistake‑of‑fact defense as to age for actual minors)
- People v. Hendrix, 13 Cal.5th 933 (2022) (explains mistake-of-fact operates to negate mens rea; failure‑of‑proof framing)
- People v. Griffin, 33 Cal.4th 1015 (2004) (force requirement in rape law tied to overcoming victim’s will; force/duress/menace/fear are alternative means of overcoming will)
- People v. Dearborne, 34 Cal.App.5th 250 (2019) (upheld similar CALCRIM instructions for rape‑in‑concert; no instructional error)
- People v. Aledamat, 8 Cal.5th 1 (2019) (standard for harmlessness when jury instructed on multiple theories)
- People v. Zamudio, 43 Cal.4th 327 (2008) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)