CA rape conviction overturned because victim was unmarried (this is a CURRENT case, people)

[niyad]

CA Rape Conviction Overturned Because Victim was Unmarried

On Wednesday, the 2nd District Court of Appeals in Los Angeles, CA overturned the rape conviction of a man who impersonated a woman's boyfriend in order to have sex with her because the woman was not married.

The district appeals court found that a law from 1827 that criminalized impersonation of a woman's husband in order have intercourse did not extend to this case because the law did not include protections for women who were not married. "A man enters the dark bedroom of an unmarried woman after seeing her boyfriend leave late at night, and has sexual intercourse with the woman while pretending to be the boyfriend. 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," the court stated. In its ruling, the district appeals court also called on the state legislature to fix the outdated legislation.

The case featured a woman who went to her home with her boyfriend and his friends after a party. After she fell asleep, her boyfriend left and a friend who had also attended the party entered the woman's room and began to have sex with her. When she realized the man was not her boyfriend, she began to yell and her attacker left. She called her boyfriend who summoned the police. The attacker in question was convicted and served three years in prison.

Media Resources: NBC News 1/4/2013; Los Angeles Times 1/3/2013; USA Today 1/3/2013


http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=14061

[elleng]

1. Current case, old law

law from 1827 that criminalized impersonation of a woman's husband in order have intercourse did not extend to this case because the law did not include protections for women who were not married.

[niyad]

2. they really had to reach for that one, didn't they?

[elleng]

3. Really did.

Rather odd facts.

[Jenoch]

4. At least the guy did three years before the case was overturned.

You would think that there would be SOME law, other than the one from 1827, that would cover a situation such as this. Maybe the situation has come up but it just was not prosecuted. I hope other state legislatures are informed of this situation, rare though it may be, so that laws can be passed to prosecute cases like this one.

[jberryhill]

5. Yes, in fact there is...

The jury instructions were messed up and rendered it unclear what charge earned the conviction.

No, the underlying behavior is not legal, and IS rape. The problem is a technical one in relation to specifically what this guy was found guilty of.

[Grey]

6. Rape is RAPE, damn it!

[Kalidurga]

7. So much for equal protection.

Also leaves gays and lesbians out in the cold if a situation such as this comes up.

[enough]

8. k&r (nt)

[bemildred]

9. Legislators vow to change law on rape by impersonation

California legislators and the state's top prosecutor said Friday that they would work to overhaul a law that makes it a crime to obtain sex by impersonating another only if the victim is a married woman.

The 19th century law required a state appeals court on Wednesday to overturn the rape conviction of a Los Angeles County man who entered a darkened bedroom where a woman was sleeping and had sex with her.

The 18-year-old woman said she initially mistook the defendant for her boyfriend, who had left earlier, but resisted when she realized it wasn't him. Police said the defendant admitted the woman probably wrongly assumed he was her boyfriend.

The Los Angeles-based 2nd District Court of Appeal said it had ruled reluctantly and appealed to the Legislature to change the law. Another court also put the Legislature on notice of the law's anomaly 30 years ago, but legislators failed to act.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-rape-impersonation-20130105,0,2404280.story

[niyad]

10. thank you for this valuable information. so, the legilature has known about this for 30 years

and done absolutely nothing? beyond disgusting.