Calif. court tosses rape conviction, says old law doesn't protect unmarried victims

[The Straight Story]

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A California appeals court overturned the rape conviction of a man who authorities say pretended to be a sleeping woman's boyfriend before initiating intercourse, ruling that an arcane law from 1872 doesn't protect unmarried women in such cases.

A panel of judges reversed the trial court's conviction of Julio Morales and remanded it for retrial, in a decision posted Wednesday from the Los Angeles-based court.

Morales had been sentenced to three years in state prison. He was accused of entering a woman's bedroom late one night after her boyfriend had gone home and initiating sexual intercourse while she was asleep, after a night of drinking.

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.

"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.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/judge-law-wont-protect-unmarried-victims-rape

[loudsue]

1. This is an abomination.

What in the hell?

[TreasonousBastard]

2. Wierd shit happens, but the court pointed to a way...

to get a good conviction, so it's not the worst thing.

California might want to look into clarifying that law.

[hbskifreak]

3. WTF??

Is this a joke? Seriously. I wonder how the good judge would feel about that if it happend to a family member, like a daughter, for instance. "Nope, not rape, you are free to go young man"....yeah, in a pig's eye, he would have dropped the hammer on that f*cker in a second, and rightfully so.

[white_wolf]

4. A good judge wouldn't drop the hammer even if it was his daughter.

Well, first of all a judge would never rule on a case involving his family. However, even if he did a good judge would pass the same ruling regardless of whether it was a stranger or a daughter. Judges should rule on the law and merits of a case, not their personal feelings on the matter. So assuming this was an accurate reading of the law then a good judge would apply the same ruling regardless.

All that being said I don't know the law well enough to comment on whether this ruling was legally correct or not and I hope the guy is the sentence stands at retrial because the guy is scum, but I take issue with your statement regarding the judge passing a separate ruling for his daughter.

[CBGLuthier]

7. three judges made the decision, not just one.

It is called the "law", not the "I know in my heart."

The law needs to be better written. Actually that law needs to be thrown out and replaced with something that does not appear to equate women to the property of a man. The law on the books seems to me to be written to protect a husband's right to exclusivity more than any protection of the woman.

[ReRe]

5. Not another illegitimate rape?

Where is that Appeals Court panel of judges located? In Orange County? Simi Valley? I'm getting pretty tired of these rapists getting away with their crime. Decision based on an ancient 1872 law? Unmarried:not rape. Married:rape. Huh? I swear, we live in bizarro world now days..

[Angry Dragon]

6. California has not passed any rape laws since 1872??

[The Straight Story]

8. They were too busy with happy meals

(yes, I know that was only one city)

[BalancedGoat]

9. He will be retried.

The problem is that the jury was issued improper instructions. They were told that they could convict if they determined that the accused has initiated intercourse while the accuser was asleep. They were also told that they could also convict if they determined that the accused had pretended to be the accuser's boyfriend; regardless of whether or not they thought she was asleep when intercourse was initiated. Unfortunately, according to the appeals court, the relevant law for the second half of the instructions only applies if he had pretended to be her husband, which she does not have.

Due to the errant instructions, it is unclear which set of "facts" the jury convicted under. If it is determined the the woman was asleep when the man initiated intercourse, than that is clearly rape. Nothing in this ruling goes against that. But because of the lower threshold for conviction in the faulty instructions, the jury was not forced to come to a conclusion on that fact. So therefore the conviction is tossed and goes back to trial again.

Perhaps the law should be changed so that pretending to be an unmarried persons significant other would be considered rape just as pretending to be a woman's husband currently is. However that is a matter for the legislature rather than the courts.