People v. Sojka
126 Cal. Rptr. 3d 400
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Sojka was convicted by jury of one count of attempted rape by force and argues for a jury instruction on mistaken belief in victim's consent.
- The trial court did not give an instruction on Sojka's reasonable but mistaken belief in consent, which Sojka deems prejudicial.
- The victim and Sojka offer starkly different accounts of events at the apartment following a night of socializing and drinking.
- The victim testified to nonconsensual sexual acts and resistance; Sojka claimed mutual foreplay and that she seemed to enjoy it until she stopped him.
- The victim was examined at a hospital with injuries, though most could also arise from consensual activity; alcohol exposure was noted.
- Sojka was acquitted on some related charges and convicted of attempted rape by force; he timely appealed seeking reversal for instructional error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to instruct on mistaken belief in consent was prejudicial | Sojka: Mayberry instruction required; evidence supported reasonable belief. | People: no equivocal conduct supported; no need for such instruction. | Instruction required; reversal proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Mayberry, 15 Cal.3d 143 (Cal. 1975) (recognizes defense of reasonable mistaken belief in consent)
- People v. Williams, 4 Cal.4th 354 (Cal. 1992) (limits Mayberry instruction to substantial equivocal conduct evidence)
- People v. Dillon, 174 Cal.App.4th 1367 (Cal. App. 2009) (limits evidentiary scope for mistaken-belief instruction)
- People v. Lee, 51 Cal.4th 620 (Cal. 2011) (defines elements of intent for rape by force)
- People v. Eid, 187 Cal.App.4th 859 (Cal. App. 2010) (tests for harmless error in instruction)