People v. Morales
150 Cal. Rptr. 3d 920
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Morales entered Jane Doe's dark bedroom after her boyfriend left; Jane had previously agreed not to have sex that night.
- Jane woke during intercourse and realized the partner was not her boyfriend; she cried out and reported to police.
- Defendant admitted he entered while Jane was asleep, kissed her, and had sex after pulling down her clothes; he claimed she may have thought he was her boyfriend.
- Trial court instructed CALCRIM No. 1003 to define unconsciousness, including that it covers when the perpetrator tricked, lied to, or concealed information from the victim.
- Prosecution argued both asleep-and-impersonation theories for unconsciousness; defense objected to the impersonation theory.
- Conviction was appealed on two grounds: improper legal theory due to impersonation and lack of mistake-of-fact instruction; the court reversed to retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CALCRIM No. 1003 allows a conviction on an impersonation theory. | Morales argues the instruction permitted fraud-in-inducement, not fraud-in-fact. | Morales contends impersonation is not part of the unconsciousness definition for this statute. | Reversed; instruction's impersonation language is invalid for subsection (a)(4) and must be removed on retrial. |
| Whether the trial court erred by not instructing on mistake of fact regarding consent. | N/A in the sense of reversal grounds; focus on consent relevance. | Mistake-of-fact as to consent could be relevant if consent issue existed. | Not required to reverse for lack of mistake-of-fact instruction; record shows knowledge of unconsciousness controls guilt. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Ogunmola, 193 Cal.App.3d 274 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) (consent and unconsciousness connection in sex offenses)
- Mathews v. Superior Court, 119 Cal.App.3d 309 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) (impersonation and fraud in inducement historically treated differently)
- Boro v. Superior Court, 163 Cal.App.3d 1224 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (impersonation discussed in context of impersonation vs. fraud types; statutory interpretation considerations)
- People v. Stuedemann, 156 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (fraud-in-fact vs fraud-in-inducement; interpretation of unconscionability in sex offenses)
- People v. Hernandez, 200 Cal.App.4th 1000 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (elements of rape of an unconscious person under §261(a)(4))
- People v. Dancy, 102 Cal.App.4th 21 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (defendant's belief about unconsciousness not mitigating crime; focus on victim's unconscious state)
- People v. Pham, 180 Cal.App.4th 919 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (fraud in inducement vs fraud in fact in sexual offenses)
- Perez v. California, 35 Cal.4th 1219 (Cal. 2005) (standard for determining reversible from legally inadequate theories)