People v. Barnes case brief summary
42 Cal. 3D 284 (1986)
CASE FACTS
Appellant was convicted of rape and false imprisonment pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 261(2) and 236. The court of appeal reversed the convictions as unsupported by substantial evidence after applying former § 261, which required the victim to resist the act.
ARGUMENT
Appellant argued that the legislature's amendment deleting references to resistance did not change the definition of rape since resistance was never an element of the crime and that the amendment had no impact on the factors used in evaluating his claim of insufficiency of the evidence.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed appellant's convictions and directed the court of appeal to enter an order affirming the judgment of conviction. The court stated that the court of appeal erred in applying the requirements of the former rape statute to the facts of the case because the amended statute was clearly in effect when the offense occurred for which appellant was convicted. Reliance by the court of appeal on the former rape statute was improper.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law
42 Cal. 3D 284 (1986)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant challenged an order by the
Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California),
which convicted him of rape and false imprisonment pursuant to Cal.
Penal Code § 261(2) and 236.CASE FACTS
Appellant was convicted of rape and false imprisonment pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 261(2) and 236. The court of appeal reversed the convictions as unsupported by substantial evidence after applying former § 261, which required the victim to resist the act.
ARGUMENT
Appellant argued that the legislature's amendment deleting references to resistance did not change the definition of rape since resistance was never an element of the crime and that the amendment had no impact on the factors used in evaluating his claim of insufficiency of the evidence.
DISCUSSION
- The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal and directed it to enter an order affirming the judgment of conviction, finding that the court of appeal had erred in applying the requirements of former § 261 to the facts of the case.
- The court found that amended § 261 was clearly in effect when the offense occurred for which appellant was convicted.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed appellant's convictions and directed the court of appeal to enter an order affirming the judgment of conviction. The court stated that the court of appeal erred in applying the requirements of the former rape statute to the facts of the case because the amended statute was clearly in effect when the offense occurred for which appellant was convicted. Reliance by the court of appeal on the former rape statute was improper.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law
No comments:
Post a Comment