Calif. court orders new trial in rape of sleeping woman
Source: USA TODAY
Because a 19th-century state law does not explicitly protect unmarried rape victims from attackers pretending to be a boyfriend, a California appeals court Thursday overturned a man's conviction for having sex with a sleeping woman.
The 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles ordered a new trial for Julio Morales, who was convicted of raping a friend's 18-year-old sister in Cerritos after a party in February 2009. He was sentenced to three years in prison.
Here's how the court's opinion, which includes details of the encounter, framed the case:
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.
Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/03/california-rape-conviction-overturned-impersonation-sleeping-woman/1808221/
SemperEadem
(8,053 posts)a man who impersonates someone else and rapes a woman--that is still rape. He did not have her explicit consent.
Her marital status has absolutely nothing to do with it. I get so sick and tired of rape being parsed to the nth degree... as if marital status diminishes the horrific impact of some man forcing himself on her. The question is: had she known the guy, would she have consented to have sex with him? Mostly likely, no. It's the same as raping a drugged person--she could not form consent because she was asleep and he did not identify his true identity.
fucking scum needs to rot in prison.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)I worked with a woman to whom something like this happened. My husband and I used to go and play cards with them on the weekend. Her husband worked the night shift.
His co-worker was off one night and decided to go slip in the window and rape her and he said he'd be back. They couldn't prove it, she couldn't identify the man in the dark.
He did come back, but she had a hand gun under her pillow. He said he had something for her and she responded that she had something for him, too. The end of the story is obvious. She was not charged.
rocktivity
(44,555 posts)If he entered (broke into?) the home and bedroom with the intent of having sex with the woman and did not get consent because she was asleep, the answer should be yes. If she was asleep, she was incapable of giving consent = rape.
rocktivity
24601
(3,940 posts)impersonating his girlfriend. Has she raped him?
Are legal standards applicable to both men and women alike? What's the track record in cases involving teachers having sex with students? Here in Tampa we have the teacher that was "too pretty" for prison.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/mar/24/usa.gender
rocktivity
(44,555 posts)Switch the genders, and she has raped him. It is any less than robbery if the robber knows the gun isn't loaded?
rocktivity
24601
(3,940 posts)case it would be rape, or if the jury found that it was impersonation, in which case the law does not yet define it as rape.
So does the DU population believe that when a definitive determination cannot be made by an appeals court, the tie goes to the defendant or to the state?
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)rescinded decades ago. No doubt an oversight of a 100-year-old law that most attorneys probably didn't know existed. (Well, except for the rapist's attorney, of course.) The CA legislature needs to get on this, like, yesterday.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,154 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Bookmarking this thread for further action.
alp227
(31,962 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)in Post #8. Lotta good information there.
bluesbassman
(19,310 posts)Let us hope that that if there is a silver lining to this travesty that it will be speedy legislative action to close that absurd loophole.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)In that case, appellant has failed to demonstrate prejudicial error.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)What more can I say at this time...stupid.