People v. Barnes
42 Cal. 3d 284, 721 P.2d 110, 228 Cal. Rptr. 228 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under California Penal Code § 261, subdivision (2), as amended in 1980, the prosecution is not required to prove that a victim physically resisted an assailant to sustain a conviction for rape. The critical inquiry is whether the act was accomplished against the victim's will by means of force or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury.
Facts:
- Marsha M. and appellant were acquaintances who lived near each other.
- Around 1 a.m. on May 28, 1982, Marsha M. went to appellant's house to buy marijuana after he called her multiple times.
- After persuading her to come inside, appellant made unwanted physical advances, which Marsha M. rebuffed by pushing him away and telling him to stop.
- Marsha M. attempted to leave, but appellant became angry, blocked her at the front gate, acted as if he was going to hit her, and prevented her from leaving.
- Marsha M. followed appellant back to a room, where he continued to threaten her by displaying his muscles, grabbing her by her sweater, and stating he could make her do anything he wanted and that she was about to see his 'bad side'.
- Believing she would be physically harmed if she refused, Marsha M. complied with appellant's demand to remove her clothes.
- An act of sexual intercourse occurred, which Marsha M. testified she engaged in solely out of fear of physical violence.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant was convicted by a jury in the trial court of one count of rape and one count of false imprisonment.
- Appellant, as appellant, appealed his convictions to the Court of Appeal, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the rape and false imprisonment convictions, finding the evidence was insufficient to support them.
- The Attorney General, as petitioner, sought and was granted review by the California Supreme Court, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does California Penal Code § 261, subdivision (2), as amended in 1980, require proof of a victim's physical resistance to sustain a conviction for rape accomplished by means of force or fear?
Opinions:
Majority - Bird, C.J.
No. California Penal Code § 261, subdivision (2), as amended, does not require proof of a victim's resistance to sustain a rape conviction; the focus is on whether the act was accomplished by force or fear. The Court of Appeal erred by applying the pre-1980 version of the statute, which required the prosecution to prove that the victim's resistance was overcome by force. The 1980 legislative amendment intentionally removed the resistance requirement, a change supported by legislative history indicating a purpose to relieve the state of this burden and to release victims from the dangerous expectation that they must resist an attacker to prove non-consent. This amendment brings the law of rape into conformity with other violent crimes where resistance is not a prerequisite for conviction. The court must review the totality of the circumstances to determine if there is substantial evidence of force or fear. Here, appellant's threatening conduct, including his verbal threats, physical intimidation, and ominous statements, provided sufficient evidence for a rational jury to conclude that Marsha M.'s submission was the result of a genuine and reasonable fear of immediate bodily injury, and was therefore not consensual.
Analysis:
This decision officially marks a significant doctrinal shift in California rape law, moving the legal focus from the victim's response to the perpetrator's coercive conduct. It definitively rejects the archaic legal and social expectation that a victim must physically resist to prove non-consent, acknowledging both the psychological complexities of trauma and the physical danger that resistance can create. By eliminating the resistance requirement as a basis for evaluating the sufficiency of evidence, the court lowered a substantial historical barrier to prosecuting sexual assaults. This precedent solidifies that a rape conviction can be sustained based on the totality of circumstances demonstrating force or fear, aligning rape jurisprudence with that of other violent crimes like robbery and assault.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Barnes