People v. Woods
194 Cal. Rptr. 3d 128
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Grey David Woods was convicted by jury of multiple counts involving sexual abuse of C.C., his girlfriend’s daughter; he pled guilty to one count (possession of child pornography) pretrial.
- Acts spanned 2008–2012: sexual touching, oral copulation, intercourse, photos/videos; victim was a minor who became pregnant and underwent a second‑trimester abortion.
- Information charged six counts of forcible rape (§ 261(a)(2)), eight counts of forcible oral copulation of a minor (§ 288a(c)(2)(C)), one count of forcible oral copulation in concert (§ 288a(d)(3)), one count of felony child abuse, and enhancements/One‑Strike allegations; jury found all allegations true.
- Defense requested jury instructions on lesser included offenses: nonforcible oral copulation with a minor (§ 288a(b)(1)) and unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (§ 261.5). Trial court denied those requests and instead instructed on consent per § 261.6 and on great bodily injury (including that pregnancy can be great bodily injury).
- On appeal, court held the trial court erred by failing to instruct sua sponte on nonforcible oral copulation as a lesser included offense of the forcible oral copulation counts; convictions on nine oral‑copulation counts were reversed and vacated. Other challenges (statutory rape as a lesser of forcible rape; consent instruction; great‑bodily‑injury instruction; sufficiency of evidence of great bodily injury) were rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Woods) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court had duty to instruct on nonforcible oral copulation (§ 288a(b)(1)) as lesser to forcible oral copulation of a minor (§ 288a(c)(2)(C)) and forcible oral copulation in concert (§ 288a(d)(3)) | No instruction required because age‑related allegations were included as separate sentencing-type paragraphs and thus do not make the lesser necessarily included | Trial court should have instructed on nonforcible oral copulation; evidence supported possibility that some oral acts were nonforcible | Court: Concedes nonforcible oral copulation is a lesser included offense and that evidence warranted instruction; failure was prejudicial. Convictions on nine counts reversed. |
| Whether unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (§ 261.5) is a lesser included offense of forcible rape (§ 261(a)(2)) under accusatory‑pleading test | § 261.5 is not a lesser included offense here because One‑Strike/sentencing allegations (age) are analogous to enhancements and cannot be used to create a lesser included offense | § 261.5 is a lesser under accusatory pleading because the information alleged the victim was a minor and One‑Strike allegations reference the victim’s minority | Court: Rejects Woods. One‑Strike allegations are akin to enhancements and are not considered when defining lesser included offenses; no duty to instruct on § 261.5. |
| Whether § 261.6 consent instruction given was improper or shifted burden | Instruction tracked statutory definition and was appropriate | Instruction was argumentative, improper, and lessened prosecution’s burden by stating dating relationship "shall not be sufficient" | Court: Instruction was a correct statement of law; not prejudicial or burden‑shifting. |
| Whether pregnancy/abortion could support great bodily injury finding and whether the modified instruction referencing pregnancy was improper | A pregnancy can constitute great bodily injury; the instruction was a correct legal statement and not argumentative | Pregnancy/abortion insufficient to prove great bodily injury; referencing pregnancy was an improper pinpoint | Court: Substantial evidence supported great bodily injury finding; instruction that pregnancy "can" be great bodily injury was legally correct and not argumentative. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Smith, 57 Cal.4th 232 (discusses elements and accusatory‑pleading test for lesser included offenses)
- People v. Reed, 38 Cal.4th 1224 (accusatory‑pleading test principles)
- People v. Wolcott, 34 Cal.3d 92 (enhancement allegations not considered for lesser‑included analysis)
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (harmless‑error standard for omitted lesser‑included instructions)
- People v. Cross, 45 Cal.4th 58 (pregnancy/abortion can support great bodily injury)
- People v. Anderson, 47 Cal.4th 92 (One‑Strike scheme compared to sentencing enhancements and jury procedure)
- People v. Gonzalez, 33 Cal.App.4th 1440 (upholding consent definition instruction based on statute)
- People v. Millbrook, 222 Cal.App.4th 1122 (standard of review for failure to instruct on lesser included offenses)