People v. Samuels
250 Cal. App. 2d 501, 58 Cal. Rptr. 439, 1967 Cal. App. LEXIS 2132 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Consent of the victim is not a defense to the crime of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, as the state's interest in protecting its citizens from severe harm overrides an individual's consent to such violence.
Facts:
- Marvin Samuels, an ophthalmologist with self-identified sadomasochistic urges, engaged in photography as a hobby to control and release these urges in what he considered harmless ways.
- Samuels produced several films depicting individuals being whipped, in which he participated as either the person wielding the whip or the cameraman.
- He met Kenneth Anger, a film director, and discussed developing his sadomasochistic films, with the understanding they would be donated to the Kinsey Institute for scientific study.
- Samuels arranged for a man he met through the San Francisco 'underground' to come to his home to volunteer for a new sadomasochistic film.
- In his home, Samuels filmed himself whipping the naked and gagged volunteer, who was strung up in a room. This film became known as the 'vertical' film.
- Samuels gave the 'vertical' film to Anger to have it developed at a commercial camera store.
- The camera store sent the film to an Eastman Kodak processing lab, whose employees viewed the film and contacted the police.
Procedural Posture:
- Marvin Samuels was charged by indictment in a trial court with conspiracy to violate obscenity laws, assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury, and sodomy.
- A jury acquitted Samuels of sodomy but found him guilty of the conspiracy and aggravated assault charges.
- The trial court suspended the sentence and placed Samuels on probation for a period of 10 years.
- Samuels, as the appellant, appealed the order granting probation (which functions as an appeal from the conviction) to the California Court of Appeal, First District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the consent of the victim a valid defense to a charge of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Shoemaker, P. J.
No, the consent of the victim is not a valid defense to a charge of assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury. The court reasoned that while consent can be a defense to ordinary physical contact, such as in sports, it is not a defense to a crime designed to prohibit one person from severely injuring another. The court stated it is a matter of common knowledge that a normal person does not freely consent to the use of force likely to produce great bodily injury. Therefore, the state's interest in preventing such harm overrides any purported consent from the victim. The court also reversed Samuels' conspiracy convictions, holding that under the precedent of In re Klor, merely preparing obscene material without the intent to distribute it is not a crime. The evidence showed Samuels only intended to prepare the films for donation to a scientific institution, not for public distribution, and there was no evidence he and his film subjects agreed to distribute them.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent in California criminal law by affirming that consent is not a defense to aggravated assault. It draws a clear line between minor physical contact, where consent may be a valid defense, and acts of violence likely to cause great bodily injury, where public policy dictates that the state has an overriding interest in preventing such harm. The ruling has a lasting impact on cases involving mutual combat, hazing, and sadomasochistic activities, clarifying that participants cannot legally consent to acts that cross the threshold into severe violence. The decision reinforces the principle that the criminal law's purpose is to protect the public's safety, even from individuals' own choices to engage in highly dangerous activities.
