People v. Wiidanen
201 Cal. App. 4th 526
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Defendant Wiidanen attended a New Year’s Eve party where Doe was sleeping naked in a dark room; Doe awoke to a man performing oral sex and identified Wiidanen as the assailant.
- After the incident, Doe reported the assault to police and Wiidanen gave multiple statements denying any sexual contact; he later admitted being heavily intoxicated.
- DNA analysis showed defendant’s DNA on Doe’s penis, suggesting contact; defense argued the act was consensual and memory gaps were due to intoxication.
- At trial, the jury was instructed with CALCRIM No. 362 (consciousness of guilt) and an unmodified CALCRIM No. 3426 (voluntary intoxication) which limited consideration of intoxication to knowledge of unconsciousness.
- The jury found Wiidanen guilty of orally copulating an unconscious person; the trial court suspended sentence and placed him on three years’ probation.
- On appeal, Wiidanen challenged the instructions and related claims; the appellate court vacated none of the verdict but found instructional error harmless under state law and due process standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether giving CALCRIM 362 with an unmodified CALCRIM 3426 violated due process | People argued the combo allowed an irrational inference about guilt | Wiidanen contends the pair prohibits using intoxication to negate false statements | Error occurred but harmless |
| Whether the instructional error violated due process under the due process standard | People assert permissible inference supported by DNA evidence | Wiidanen contends the inference is irrational | No due process violation; error harmless under Watson standard |
| Whether the DNA evidence and defendant’s post hoc memory claims affect credibility analysis | DNA evidence supports guilt beyond reasonable doubt | DNA evidence could be misinterpreted; memory gaps due to intoxication | Evidence properly weighed; no due process issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1985) (permissive inferences must be reasonable given proven facts)
- People v. Reyes, 52 Cal.App.4th 975 (Cal.App. 1997) (intoxication relevant to awareness and understanding)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (standard for harmless error under Watson)