Rape conviction overturned because victim was not married
LOS ANGELES (AP) - California appellate judges urged legislators to update an arcane 19th century law, as the panel reversed the rape conviction of a man who authorities say pretended to be a sleeping woman's boyfriend before initiating intercourse.
The Los Angeles-based appeals court said that the 1872 measure doesn't give single women the same protections as their married counterparts in certain rape cases.
Julio Morales had been convicted and sentenced to three years in state prison, found guilty of entering a woman's bedroom late one night once her boyfriend had gone home and initiating sexual intercourse while she was asleep, after a night of drinking.
But a panel of judges overturned the trial court's conviction and remanded it for retrial, in a decision posted this week.
The victim said her boyfriend was in the room when she fell asleep, and they'd decided against having sex that night because he didn't have a condom and he had to be somewhere early the next day.
Morales pretended to be her boyfriend in the darkened room, and it wasn't until a ray of light from outside the room flashed across his face that she realized he wasn't her boyfriend, according to prosecutors.
"Has the man committed rape? Because of historical anomalies in the law and the statutory definition of rape, the answer is no, even though, if the woman had been married and the man had impersonated her husband, the answer would be yes," Judge Thomas L. Willhite Jr. wrote in the court's decision.
The appeals court added that prosecutors argued two theories, and it was unclear if the jury convicted Morales because the defendant tricked the victim or because sex with a sleeping person is defined as rape by law.
The court said the case should be retried to ensure the jury's conviction is supported by the latter argument.
The decision also urges the Legislature to examine the law, which was first written in response to cases in England that concluded fraudulent impersonation to have sex wasn't rape because the victim would consent, even if they were being tricked into thinking the perpetrator was their husband.
Willhite noted that the law has been applied inconsistently over the years in California.
In 2010, a similar law in Idaho prevented an unmarried woman from pressing rape charges after being tricked into sex with a stranger by her then-boyfriend.
The judge called what happened "despicable" but said the state's law left the court with no choice. Idaho's law was amended to cover all women in 2011.
Morales' attorney Edward Schulman declined comment when reached by phone Thursday.
Prior to the conviction, Schulman had argued Morales believed the sex was consensual because the victim responded to his kisses and caresses, according to the decision.
The Los Angeles-based appeals court said that the 1872 measure doesn't give single women the same protections as their married counterparts in certain rape cases.
Julio Morales had been convicted and sentenced to three years in state prison, found guilty of entering a woman's bedroom late one night once her boyfriend had gone home and initiating sexual intercourse while she was asleep, after a night of drinking.
But a panel of judges overturned the trial court's conviction and remanded it for retrial, in a decision posted this week.
The victim said her boyfriend was in the room when she fell asleep, and they'd decided against having sex that night because he didn't have a condom and he had to be somewhere early the next day.
Morales pretended to be her boyfriend in the darkened room, and it wasn't until a ray of light from outside the room flashed across his face that she realized he wasn't her boyfriend, according to prosecutors.
"Has the man committed rape? Because of historical anomalies in the law and the statutory definition of rape, the answer is no, even though, if the woman had been married and the man had impersonated her husband, the answer would be yes," Judge Thomas L. Willhite Jr. wrote in the court's decision.
The appeals court added that prosecutors argued two theories, and it was unclear if the jury convicted Morales because the defendant tricked the victim or because sex with a sleeping person is defined as rape by law.
The court said the case should be retried to ensure the jury's conviction is supported by the latter argument.
The decision also urges the Legislature to examine the law, which was first written in response to cases in England that concluded fraudulent impersonation to have sex wasn't rape because the victim would consent, even if they were being tricked into thinking the perpetrator was their husband.
Willhite noted that the law has been applied inconsistently over the years in California.
In 2010, a similar law in Idaho prevented an unmarried woman from pressing rape charges after being tricked into sex with a stranger by her then-boyfriend.
The judge called what happened "despicable" but said the state's law left the court with no choice. Idaho's law was amended to cover all women in 2011.
Morales' attorney Edward Schulman declined comment when reached by phone Thursday.
Prior to the conviction, Schulman had argued Morales believed the sex was consensual because the victim responded to his kisses and caresses, according to the decision.
Again, we are doomed as a species...
I hope the lawmakers behind this absurdity wake up with a baseball bat up their asses. It's only rape if the victim is a MLB player.
Just shoot the guy and let god sort it out.
What a stupid law! He was not her boyfriend,and this was rape. Did this person even know this women? How did he get in her place?
How little we have come, how far we have to go. Shameful!
What is non-consensual sex if not "rape"?
Â
@negativerep I don't understand; are judges all over the country on drugs?
 @iamtroglodite Poor judges can't win! If they follow the law, we say they are on drugs. If they go it on their own, we say they are legislating from the bench! These guys had to base their decision on the legal reason given for the appeal. Really, their hands were tied at that point. But, as the article states, it was pointed out how prosecutors should going about securing another conviction. The judges aren't heartless or insane. Give them a break.
I know a guy in prison here in Oregon who was at a party; everyone got pretty wasted, he "had his way"with a woman who was passed out. He got busted and is doing time. I know I am kinda dumb, but passed out not knowing sombody is having sex with you fits both here; it is rape!
I'm all for defendants having a right to a capable attorney, but it's merde like this that just sickens me to the core.Â
Â
I don't give a good gosh-darn if they were married, the only question that matters is if she knowingly and willingly participated in intercourse with the defendant. If not, it's rape.Â
Â
Along comes some judicial welfare suckling law school grad, and suddenly this disgusting piece of human debris is 'innocent' because of some legal technicality.Â
Â
Once again, justice doesn't wear a blindfold because she's blind,Â
she wears it because she's embarrased by what our judicial system has become.Â
 @MarkKpic I agree with your anger, but it should be noted that the rapist hasn't been declared innocent. He's going to be retried. They even made clear that the prosecutor should base the case on him having sex with a sleeping person - which is definitely rape under the current law.Â
 @Max Quinn >'but it should be noted that the rapist hasn't been declared innocent.'
Â
Technically, no. However,
Â
'But a panel of judges overturned the trial court's conviction and remanded it for retrial, in a decision posted this week.'
Â
What that means, in legal terms, is that his conviction has been vacated. More specifically, he has been exonerated of his original conviction. As in, it's no longer on his record as a 'guilty' verdict of a criminal trial. The prosecuting attorney must now go through the process all over again, from the start, and another trial must take place in order to reconvict him... at taxpayer expense.... for something that is not disputed to have taken place.Â
Â
Of course, I sincerely doubt that the prosecuting attorneys will allow him to go free prior to the retrial, so there's really no harm or danger to the public in general... but, none the less, what irks me is that some law degree carnival barker envoked some stupid age-old technicality to cut his or her teeth in the judicial system, and get some taxpayer money for billable hours.Â
Â
There are plenty of examples of wrongly convicted persons in prisons throughout the county, go hit up the ACLU or freedom project for your billable hours and do something good for the judicial system instead of just profiting by giving it a black eye with this sort of circus stunt.Â
California doesn't have plenty of money, unless it's Monopoly money. On the other hand, even in California, justice is blind....and she can't tell the difference between a $1 bill and a $100 bill. LOL
 @jpk >'The case was sent for retrial.'
Â
And therein lies my point.Â
Â
It was sent for retrial (at taxpayer expense) not because there is a question as to his guilt or innocence, not because of faulty evidenciary process or bias, but rather because some law school graduate played technicalities with a law that is obsolete, but still on the books.Â
Â
Oh, what the heck... California has plenty of money, right?
The case was sent for retrial. The defendant was not absolved of wrongdoing with prejudice.
Since there is no mention of a baby canât we just assume that this was a legitimate rape?
 @JTesla According to the chart, no. There's no evidence that her body tried to "shut that whole thing down".Â
Â
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/24/1149395/-GOP-Rape-Advisory-Chart-h-t-to-connecticutie
 @Max Quinn  @JTesla Thanks Max, I was looking for my Republican Rape Reference chart!
Â
I would classify it as an "Easy Rape" with a touch of "Enjoyable Rape"...until she woke up.
 @Max Quinn  @deejm2112  @JTesla Max I have followed your comments long enough to know you were not really joking. Ya you thought it was funny but you also seem to believe it from past comments.
Â
Also most jokes if it was a joke are only funny because they have elements of truth in them.
 @FreedomRocks  @deejm2112  @JTesla So if I follow your innate conservative sense of eternal victimhood, a harmless joke was actually a broad-based assault on upon you and your other party members because we didn't mention that other people have said stupid things, too. I can see the hypocrisy.
@FreedomRocks The great thing about not being a liberal, or a conservative, or a Democrat, or a Republican is that I get to make fun of the whole lot.
 @deejm2112  @Max Quinn  @JTesla So if I follow the liberal mentality (can't use the word logic with liberal it would be an oxymoron) going on here of painting an entire party by one comment make by an idiot who claims to belong to that party then why are you not equally as outraged from all the completely moronic comments that have come out of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Joe Biden....
Â
Oh ya I know why its because as a liberal being a complete hypocrite is a prerequisite and if you can't argue logically against a groups beliefs as a whole then you have to attack and slander because it is all you know how to do...
 @JTesla Might be since it sounds like it wasn't "violent" or "forcible".
Weird Laws..Well, I hope that they get it straightened out. and any woman that can sleep through sex...Has a larger issue on her hands.
 @lee986321 As I read it, she was asleep when he crawled into her bed.  Since she realized it wasn't her boyfriend when light from outside hit him, obviously she was awake during the encounter.  Who would expect a woman to turn on the light to verify the man she woke up with is the same man she fell asleep with?
Â
The bigger question is why are there still laws like this on the books. Â His intent was to have sex without her consent. Â That's rape. Â End of discussion. Â This is almost as bad as the rape conviction that was thrown out because the victim was so handicapped (non-verbal and the mind of a 3 year old) that she couldn't tell him to stop.Â
 @Emi-Lynn  @lee986321 >'The bigger question is why are there still laws like this on the books. '
Â
Because, much like taxes, once a bill is signed into law it never really goes away. It just lies there, waiting for some judicial welfare suckling law school grad to use and abuse to get his client off, or for some backwater law enforcement officer to enforce a moral code on someone.Â
Â
I've not done any verification of the content, but here's a list of some laws still on the books in the US.Â
Â
http://www.worldoffemale.com/dumb-laws-state-by-state/
Â
A few things I came away from looking at the list with;
Â
It's ironic how many states have 'morality' laws on the books.
Â
A few highlights...
Â
In OR, 'It is against the law for a man to curse or use profane language while having sex with his wife.'
Â
In WA, 'Any woman sitting on the lap of a man on a bus or train must place a pillow between the manâs lap and her rear end or the woman could face a prison sentence of up to six months.'
 @MarkKpic  @Emi-Lynn  @lee986321 ~  Mr Clemmons was a wise man..!   :-
 @jpk  @margay1  @MarkKpic  @lee986321 ~  "Riding a bicycle without a bike seat" ...  That conjures up some PAINFUL images...OUCH..!!!  Â
 @jpk  @margay1  @MarkKpic  @lee986321 As I said above, the one that gives me shivers is the number of laws still on the books about morality.Â
Â
Just as an example, there are still laws on the books in many state about 'sodomy'. I recall there was a debacle a few years back in TX where some homophobic law enforcement officer arrested two guys for consentual relations with one another under such laws. It ended up having to go all the way to the appealate courts before it was dismissed.
Â
The problem is, 'sodomy' is not just a homosexual act. CA, for example, still has laws on the books prohibiting sodomy. Guess there's a whole lot of 'actors' in the adult film industry who are nervous about the video evidence out there?
 @margay1  @Emi-Lynn  @lee986321 To quote Samuel  Clemmons- "The fundamental problem with laws is they are written by lawyers."
@margay1 @MarkKpic @Emi-Lynn @lee986321 You should read some of the nonsensical laws that abounded in Oregon prior to their reclassification and organization into Oregon Revised Statutes. Hint: some of the idiotic laws are still there. Riding a bicycle without a bike seat is still there, hahaha.
 @MarkKpic  @Emi-Lynn  @lee986321 ~  Don't you just LOVE these "dumb laws" lists..?   Honestly, no one but a politician could write stuff like this..!   I still think we need to have something that says that every time they put a new law into effect, they have to DELETE two (2) old / obsolete laws...states as well as the Feds..!   Â
What's really scary is when you stop and remember that most of our "lawmakers" are lawyers..! Â Â Maybe we need to bar lawyers from being lawmakers - let people with common sense do it..!
 @lee986321 Or there may be smaller issues on the other side. *cough*
 @lee986321Â
"Sleep" can include being passed out, or drugged. I think the word they wanted to use was unconscious.
Â
But I agree, it would be really unfortunate for both woman and her partner if she were capable is sleeping through such an encounter.