163 Cal. App. 3d 1224, 210 Cal. Rptr. 122 (1985)
-Ms. R. received a mysterious phone call from "Dr. Stevens."
-Dr. Stevens informed her that she had contracted a fatal disease.
-The doctor gave her two options, either go to the hospital for a painful surgery, or have sex with an anonymous 'donor' who had been inoculated with a vaccine.
-Ms. R had no medical insurance and couldn't afford surgery.
-Ms. R. consented to meet the donor in a hotel, and slept with him. She believed that this was the only choice she had.
-She also paid the donor $1000 for his services.
-Later, she was shocked to learn that she didn't have a fatal disease, and that sex with anonymous strangers in hotel rooms is not an AMA approved medical procedure, she filed a complaint that she had been raped.
-Boro was arrested and charged with rape.
-Boro was charged with California Statute (261(4)), rape "where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act and this is known to the accused."
-The prosecutor argued that Ms. R. was unconscious of the nature of the act because Boro's misrepresentation made her believe it was a medical treatment, not just sex.
-Boro argued that Ms. R. knew the nature of her act, and she did it voluntarily. He argued that Ms. R's motivations for doing it are not relevant.
-There was no force involved, so Boro could not be charged with the more traditional form or rape.
-The Trial Court found Boro innocent of rape.
-The Trial Court found that consent induced by fraud is as valid as any other consent, even if it makes the defendant unsavory.
-Under California law, at the time, as long as the person was aware that what they were doing was sex, then they gave consent.
-If Boro had tricked her into thinking that she was not having sex, or she was having sex with her husband, then the act would have been covered under the Statute. But there was no law against fraud in the inducement.
-Boro was, however, convicted of grand theft and burglary because he fraudulently took the $1000.
-Later, the California Legislature amended 261(4) to state that a victim is "unconscious of the nature of the act...when they are not aware of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator's fraudulent representation that the sexual act served a professional purpose."
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?