People v. White, 212 Cal. Rptr. 3d 376

Defendant Billy Charles White had sexual intercourse with a woman after a night of heavy drinking; the victim had no memory of leaving the bar and woke up in a hotel room. The jury found she was both intoxicated and unconscious during the act and that defendant knew those circumstances.
White was convicted on two counts: rape of an intoxicated person (Pen. Code § 261(a)(3)) and rape of an unconscious person (Pen. Code § 261(a)(4)(A)).
Trial court sentenced on the § 261(a)(3) count and stayed sentence on the § 261(a)(4)(A) count under § 654. The Court of Appeal vacated the (a)(4)(A) conviction, relying on People v. Craig.
The Attorney General sought review; the Supreme Court granted review to decide whether multiple convictions under different subdivisions of § 261 for the same act are permissible.
The Supreme Court majority overruled Craig to the extent it held § 261’s subdivisions do not define separate offenses and held the defendant may be convicted of both subdivisions (but not punished for both).
Justice Liu dissented, arguing stare decisis and statutory-structure reasons support retaining Craig and treating § 261 as defining a single offense with alternative circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether one act of intercourse can support convictions under both § 261(a)(3) (intoxicated victim) and § 261(a)(4)(A) (unconscious victim)	Subdivisions describe different offenses; convictions on both are permitted under § 954; punishment for both can be stayed under § 654	Subdivisions are different statements of the same rape offense (Craig); allowing multiple convictions undermines stare decisis and should not be applied retroactively or by rule of lenity	Yes. The Court overrules Craig to the extent inconsistent and holds multiple convictions valid though multiple punishment is barred (stay under § 654)

People v. Gonzalez, 60 Cal.4th 533 (2014) (held subdivisions of § 288a define separate offenses; analytical framework applied to § 261)
People v. Craig, 17 Cal.2d 453 (1941) (earlier rule that § 261’s subdivisions do not create separate offenses; partially overruled)
People v. Benavides, 35 Cal.4th 69 (2005) (multiple convictions may be based on a single act when one offense is not necessarily included in another)
People v. Pearson, 42 Cal.3d 351 (1986) (discussed evolution permitting multiple convictions with stayed sentences under § 654)
In re Hess, 45 Cal.2d 171 (1955) (commentary on Craig’s context with respect to multiple punishment)
Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37 (1990) (ex post facto analysis: prohibits retroactive judicial enlargements that increase punishment)