People v. Robinson
63 Cal. 4th 200
| Cal. | 2016Background
- Defendant Lee Hoang Robinson, a salon worker, invited four women to his salon and performed intimate touchings and digital penetration while representing the contact as professional (facials/massages).
- Two younger victims (17 and 18) led to convictions the Court of Appeal upheld; two adult victims (Trang and Odette) later were found by the Attorney General to lack evidentiary support that they were deceived by the professional-purpose representation.
- Robinson was charged with multiple counts of sexual battery by misrepresentation of professional purpose (Pen. Code § 243.4(c)) and related counts; a jury convicted him as charged, including counts later contested on appeal.
- The Court of Appeal accepted the Attorney General’s concession of insufficiency as to two victims but reduced those convictions to misdemeanor sexual battery (Pen. Code § 243.4(e)(1)) as a lesser included offense.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal, holding misdemeanor sexual battery is not a necessarily included offense of sexual battery by misrepresentation where the same evidence is required to prove both offenses and the jury was not asked to find lack of consent on any basis other than fraud.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 243.4(c) (sexual battery by misrepresentation of professional purpose) requires lack of consent | The statute’s "unconscious of the nature of the act" formulation is equivalent to lack of consent; Legislature intended misrepresentation to vitiate consent | § 243.4(c) need not include a consent element separate from the misrepresentation circumstance | Held: § 243.4(c) does require lack of consent; misrepresentation that makes the victim unconscious of the act’s nature vitiates consent |
| Whether misdemeanor sexual battery (§ 243.4(e)(1)) is a lesser included offense of sexual battery by misrepresentation (§ 243.4(c)) | The elements overlap (intimate touching + sexual purpose + lack of consent), so misdemeanor battery is necessarily included and convictions may be reduced | Where the same evidence is needed to prove all elements of both offenses and the jury was only instructed on fraud-induced unconsciousness, the misdemeanor is not a lesser included offense because the jury never found lack of consent on an alternate basis | Held: Not a lesser included offense here. Because the prosecution’s theory depended solely on fraudulent misrepresentation and the jury made no independent finding of lack of consent, the Court of Appeal erred in reducing the convictions under § 1181(6). |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bailey, 54 Cal.4th 740 (explains elements test for lesser included offenses)
- People v. Shockley, 58 Cal.4th 400 (same-evidence rule: when identical evidence is required for both offenses, one may not be a lesser included offense)
- People v. Anderson, 15 Cal.3d 806 (due process/notice rationale for lesser included doctrine)
- People v. Navarro, 40 Cal.4th 668 (reviewing court may conform verdict to facts as found by jury under § 1181(6))
- Ogunmola v. Superior Court (People v. Ogunmola), 193 Cal.App.3d 274 (common-law fraud in fact v. inducement discussion regarding vitiation of consent)
- Boro v. Superior Court, 163 Cal.App.3d 1224 (fraud-in-inducement can fail to vitiate consent under common law; legislative response discussed)