California Court Frees Rapist, Rules Only Married Women Protected by Law

[CaféAuLait]

The prosecutor elected to charge him with impersonating her husband, not rape. Blame that idiot, not the judge.

NO, that is not what happened, perhaps you need to reread the OP article. He was charged with rape of an unconscious person. BUT the law says she was NOT raped since she was UNmarried. They did not charge him as impersonating her husband, she was not married. If she had been married then he woud have been convicted.

Read more: Julio Morales Rape Case Appeal Ruling - Business Insider

And for the person who keeps says that this was her getting "caught" and regreting sex, the man admitted that he was pretending to be her boyfriend to trick her for sex.

Julio Morales Rape Case Appeal Ruling - Business Insider

Perhaps you should read your link.

"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," the court said in its ruling (emphasis ours). "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 woman, identified only as Jane Doe, said she woke up in the middle of the night "to the sensation of having sex," which confused her because she and her boyfriend had agreed not to have sex before he left for the night. When she was able to get a glimpse of the man's face, she says, she saw it wasn't her boyfriend but a man named Julio Morales.
Jane says she screamed and tried to push Morales away, and he eventually left the room.
Morales admitted he had sex with Jane and said "he also thought she believed he was her boyfriend," according to the appeals court ruling.
However, Morales' defense team said he didn't remember Jane trying to push him away, and that he did not try and continue having sex after he initially pulled out of her.

The prosecutor could have charged him with rape because he continued with the sex after she said no. He tried to avoid the he said/she said controversy and charge him with something he was not guilty of.

I did read it, he was charged with 'rape of an unconscious person through trickery', exactly what he was found guilty of and admitted to, tricking her into believing that he was her boyfirend. But such was overturned because of an archaic law which says he had to have trick raped her into believeing he was her husband, since she was not married, the trick rape charge did not hold up. He was not charged with "impersonating her husband" as you claimed in post 18. The proscutor charged him with exactly what he admitted to. Thus the charge of 'rape of an unconscious person through trickery'.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

NO, that is not what happened, perhaps you need to reread the OP article. He was charged with rape of an unconscious person. BUT the law says she was NOT raped since she was UNmarried. They did not charge him as impersonating her husband, she was not married. If she had been married then he woud have been convicted.

Read more: Julio Morales Rape Case Appeal Ruling - Business Insider

And for the person who keeps says that this was her getting "caught" and regreting sex, the man admitted that he was pretending to be her boyfriend to trick her for sex.

Julio Morales Rape Case Appeal Ruling - Business Insider

Perhaps you should read your link.

"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," the court said in its ruling (emphasis ours). "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 woman, identified only as Jane Doe, said she woke up in the middle of the night "to the sensation of having sex," which confused her because she and her boyfriend had agreed not to have sex before he left for the night. When she was able to get a glimpse of the man's face, she says, she saw it wasn't her boyfriend but a man named Julio Morales.
Jane says she screamed and tried to push Morales away, and he eventually left the room.
Morales admitted he had sex with Jane and said "he also thought she believed he was her boyfriend," according to the appeals court ruling.
However, Morales' defense team said he didn't remember Jane trying to push him away, and that he did not try and continue having sex after he initially pulled out of her.

The prosecutor could have charged him with rape because he continued with the sex after she said no. He tried to avoid the he said/she said controversy and charge him with something he was not guilty of.

I did read it, he was charged with 'rape of an unconscious person through trickery', exactly what he was found guilty of and admitted to, tricking her into believing that he was her boyfirend. But such was overturned because of an archaic law which says he had to have trick raped her into believeing he was her husband, since she was not married, the trick rape charge did not hold up. He was not charged with "impersonating her husband" as you claimed in post 18. The proscutor charged him with exactly what he admitted to. Thus the charge of 'rape of an unconscious person through trickery'.

You are still missing the point, the law clearly says that this applies only if the rapist is impersonating the husband. If this was the only statute on the books for rape you might be able to argue that the entire penal code in California is screwed up beyond all belief, since it isn't you have to lay the blame somewhere else.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Perhaps you should read your link.


The prosecutor could have charged him with rape because he continued with the sex after she said no. He tried to avoid the he said/she said controversy and charge him with something he was not guilty of.

I did read it, he was charged with 'rape of an unconscious person through trickery', exactly what he was found guilty of and admitted to, tricking her into believing that he was her boyfirend. But such was overturned because of an archaic law which says he had to have trick raped her into believeing he was her husband, since she was not married, the trick rape charge did not hold up. He was not charged with "impersonating her husband" as you claimed in post 18. The proscutor charged him with exactly what he admitted to. Thus the charge of 'rape of an unconscious person through trickery'.

You are still missing the point, the law clearly says that this applies only if the rapist is impersonating the husband. If this was the only statute on the books for rape you might be able to argue that the entire penal code in California is screwed up beyond all belief, since it isn't you have to lay the blame somewhere else.

No, I am not missing the point. It was an archaic and obscure law from 1870 his defense came up with to have the conviction overturned. An ancient loophole on the books his defense attorney found to have his conviction over-turned. The prosecution was blindsided by the appeal based on such ( a law which was nearly 150 years old) after he admitted he did exactly what he was convicted of.

It’s kinda like one of those laws where you can’t beat your wife on a Sunday in the rain but every other day you can beat your wife laws, which are still on the books in the US in some states.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I did read it, he was charged with 'rape of an unconscious person through trickery', exactly what he was found guilty of and admitted to, tricking her into believing that he was her boyfirend. But such was overturned because of an archaic law which says he had to have trick raped her into believeing he was her husband, since she was not married, the trick rape charge did not hold up. He was not charged with "impersonating her husband" as you claimed in post 18. The proscutor charged him with exactly what he admitted to. Thus the charge of 'rape of an unconscious person through trickery'.

You are still missing the point, the law clearly says that this applies only if the rapist is impersonating the husband. If this was the only statute on the books for rape you might be able to argue that the entire penal code in California is screwed up beyond all belief, since it isn't you have to lay the blame somewhere else.

No, I am not missing the point. It was an archaic and obscure law from 1870 his defense came up with to have the conviction overturned. An ancient loophole on the books his defense attorney found to have his conviction over-turned. The prosecution was blindsided by the appeal based on such ( a law which was nearly 150 years old) after he admitted he did exactly what he was convicted of.

The defense did not dig up an old law in order to get the client off, the prosecutor charged him under a law that did not cover what he did. It is no different than charging a guy who committed murder with trespassing, and then complaining when the court throws out the conviction on the grounds that it wasn't trespassing.

 

[CaféAuLait]

You are still missing the point, the law clearly says that this applies only if the rapist is impersonating the husband. If this was the only statute on the books for rape you might be able to argue that the entire penal code in California is screwed up beyond all belief, since it isn't you have to lay the blame somewhere else.

No, I am not missing the point. It was an archaic and obscure law from 1870 his defense came up with to have the conviction overturned. An ancient loophole on the books his defense attorney found to have his conviction over-turned. The prosecution was blindsided by the appeal based on such ( a law which was nearly 150 years old) after he admitted he did exactly what he was convicted of.

The defense did not dig up an old law in order to get the client off, the prosecutor charged him under a law that did not cover what he did. It is no different than charging a guy who committed murder with trespassing, and then complaining when the court throws out the conviction on the grounds that it wasn't trespassing.

No, the prosecution did not charge him under and old law, he charged him with exactly what he admitted to, trick raping someone while they were unconscious. He was charged with exactly what he did. The defense then came back and filed an appeal after his conviction.

After an initial hung jury, a second L.A. County jury convicted Morales of rape of an unconscious person and the court sentenced him to three years in prison. Morales appealed.

The court's opinion says the prosecutor in the case told the jury that there were two ways Morales could have been found guilty of the crime. First, the jury could decide that Jane was indeed unconscious, meaning she couldn't have given consent. Or they could find that Morales had concealed his identity from her.

Since it's impossible to say whether the jury convicted for the first reason or the second, the court found that it had to overturn Morales's conviction.

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/news/2013/01/03/11833/rape-conviction-overturned-because-victim-was-not-/

Here is exactly what he was charged with, hardly and archaic law:

He was charged with rape of an unconscious person under Penal Code section 261, subdivision (a)(4).1 The jury was instructed with CALCRIM No. 1003, which, as given, stated in part that “[a] woman is unconscious of the nature of the act if she is unconscious or asleep or not aware that the act is occurring or not aware of the essential characteristics of the act because the perpetrator tricked, lied to, or concealed information from her.”

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B233796.PDF

CA Codes (pen:261-269)


He won the appeal based on the way the prosecutor presented his theory to the jury not because of what he was charged with.

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/news/2013/01/03/11833/rape-conviction-overturned-because-victim-was-not-/

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, I am not missing the point. It was an archaic and obscure law from 1870 his defense came up with to have the conviction overturned. An ancient loophole on the books his defense attorney found to have his conviction over-turned. The prosecution was blindsided by the appeal based on such ( a law which was nearly 150 years old) after he admitted he did exactly what he was convicted of.

The defense did not dig up an old law in order to get the client off, the prosecutor charged him under a law that did not cover what he did. It is no different than charging a guy who committed murder with trespassing, and then complaining when the court throws out the conviction on the grounds that it wasn't trespassing.

No, the prosecution did not charge him under and old law, he charged him with exactly what he admitted to, trick raping someone while they were unconscious. He was charged with exactly what he did. The defense then came back and filed an appeal after his conviction.

After an initial hung jury, a second L.A. County jury convicted Morales of rape of an unconscious person and the court sentenced him to three years in prison. Morales appealed.

The court's opinion says the prosecutor in the case told the jury that there were two ways Morales could have been found guilty of the crime. First, the jury could decide that Jane was indeed unconscious, meaning she couldn't have given consent. Or they could find that Morales had concealed his identity from her.

Since it's impossible to say whether the jury convicted for the first reason or the second, the court found that it had to overturn Morales's conviction.

Here is exactly what he was charged with, hardly and archaic law:

He was charged with rape of an unconscious person under Penal Code section 261, subdivision (a)(4).1 The jury was instructed with CALCRIM No. 1003, which, as given, stated in part that “[a] woman is unconscious of the nature of the act if she is unconscious or asleep or not aware that the act is occurring or not aware of the essential characteristics of the act because the perpetrator tricked, lied to, or concealed information from her.”

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B233796.PDF

CA Codes (pen:261-269)

If you go to page in the link you just provided to the decision you will see that the court is explaining how the prosecutor screwed up.

I guess that makes me right that the defense did not dig up an obscure law, the prosecutor chose the wrong section of the penal code and argued the wrong legal theory in court. The trial judge didn't catch it, which would have saved a lot of time and effort. Instead of trying to convince me to interpret the facts in the same incorrect way you insist on doing you should accept the fact that prosecutors make mistakes just as often as anyone else.

If you want to be angry and outraged, get mad at the idiot that reads a law that says the guy has to be pretending to be the woman's husband and then charges a guy that is pretending to be a boyfriend, not me.

 

[CaféAuLait]

The defense did not dig up an old law in order to get the client off, the prosecutor charged him under a law that did not cover what he did. It is no different than charging a guy who committed murder with trespassing, and then complaining when the court throws out the conviction on the grounds that it wasn't trespassing.

No, the prosecution did not charge him under and old law, he charged him with exactly what he admitted to, trick raping someone while they were unconscious. He was charged with exactly what he did. The defense then came back and filed an appeal after his conviction.

Here is exactly what he was charged with, hardly and archaic law:

He was charged with rape of an unconscious person under Penal Code section 261, subdivision (a)(4).1 The jury was instructed with CALCRIM No. 1003, which, as given, stated in part that “[a] woman is unconscious of the nature of the act if she is unconscious or asleep or not aware that the act is occurring or not aware of the essential characteristics of the act because the perpetrator tricked, lied to, or concealed information from her.”

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B233796.PDF

CA Codes (pen:261-269)

If you go to page in the link you just provided to the decision you will see that the court is explaining how the prosecutor screwed up.

I guess that makes me right that the defense did not dig up an obscure law, the prosecutor chose the wrong section of the penal code and argued the wrong legal theory in court. The trial judge didn't catch it, which would have saved a lot of time and effort. Instead of trying to convince me to interpret the facts in the same incorrect way you insist on doing you should accept the fact that prosecutors make mistakes just as often as anyone else.

If you want to be angry and outraged, get mad at the idiot that reads a law that says the guy has to be pretending to be the woman's husband and then charges a guy that is pretending to be a boyfriend, not me.

( empahasis added)

I am hardly angry at you, I am unsure why you believe such.

Please show where it stated in the law the proscutor charged him with (PENAL CODE
SECTION 261-269) that he had to pretend to be her husband, there were many definitions there.

This is the code he was charged under as stated in the appeal:

CA Codes (pen:261-269)

 

[CaféAuLait]

Oh and I am quite aware that prosecutors screw up. We volunteered for someone for an appeal where she was clearly innocent. In fact I would say the prosecutor went further than screwing up, they hid evidence ( tissue samples which did not contain arsenic) and are now being sued for it. She will win a LOT of money too. Try reading the Cindy Sommer case, she was convicted of poisoning her husband. The prosecution hired many experts and each one of them told the pros that it was not murder, when the experts refused to agree with the prosecution they fired them, all toll I think they fired 4-5 experts. All of them stated that the initial samples had been tainted and they were proven tainted by an independent lab. These experts contacted the defense and told them. The prosecutor’s hate towards Sommer’s actions after her husband’s death was apparent. The prosecution finally found one doctor who had no background in arsenic and used him, the jury convicted in everyone’s opinion because Sommer was promiscuous after her husband’s death not because she poisoned her husband. The case is fascinating and angering at the same time. She lost three years of her life.

 

[Katzndogz]

If she was unconscious she couldn't have been tricked at all. She was unconscious. Trickery is unnecessary. The reason why this law came from 1872 is because the wife had no right to say no to her husband. Pretending to be someone's husband removed the woman's right to refuse.

 

[Politico]

How can someone PRETEND to be someone's boy/girl friend without the "victim" knowing that they are not the right person?

You can't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, the prosecution did not charge him under and old law, he charged him with exactly what he admitted to, trick raping someone while they were unconscious. He was charged with exactly what he did. The defense then came back and filed an appeal after his conviction.

Here is exactly what he was charged with, hardly and archaic law:




http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B233796.PDF

CA Codes (pen:261-269)

If you go to page in the link you just provided to the decision you will see that the court is explaining how the prosecutor screwed up.

I guess that makes me right that the defense did not dig up an obscure law, the prosecutor chose the wrong section of the penal code and argued the wrong legal theory in court. The trial judge didn't catch it, which would have saved a lot of time and effort. Instead of trying to convince me to interpret the facts in the same incorrect way you insist on doing you should accept the fact that prosecutors make mistakes just as often as anyone else.

If you want to be angry and outraged, get mad at the idiot that reads a law that says the guy has to be pretending to be the woman's husband and then charges a guy that is pretending to be a boyfriend, not me.

( empahasis added)

I am hardly angry at you, I am unsure why you believe such.

Please show where it stated in the law the proscutor charged him with (PENAL CODE
SECTION 261-269) that he had to pretend to be her husband, there were many definitions there.

This is the code he was charged under as stated in the appeal:

CA Codes (pen:261-269)

Did you read the decision? The prosecutor argued that he pretended to be her husband during the trial, that made that a requirement of the crime. He was wrong, and the conviction was overturned.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh and I am quite aware that prosecutors screw up. We volunteered for someone for an appeal where she was clearly innocent. In fact I would say the prosecutor went further than screwing up, they hid evidence and are now being sued for it. She will win a LOT of money too. Try reading the Cindy Sommer case, it is fascinating.

I doubt she will win anything, the courts give immunity to prosecutors even in clear Brady violations where willful misconduct is so obvious that you have to be an idiot to pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[CaféAuLait]

How can someone PRETEND to be someone's boy/girl friend without the "victim" knowing that they are not the right person?

You can't.

Yet the man convicted told police he knew that the victim thought that he was her boyfriend and not him and he knew he was tricking her.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Oh and I am quite aware that prosecutors screw up. We volunteered for someone for an appeal where she was clearly innocent. In fact I would say the prosecutor went further than screwing up, they hid evidence and are now being sued for it. She will win a LOT of money too. Try reading the Cindy Sommer case, it is fascinating.

I doubt she will win anything, the courts give immunity to prosecutors even in clear Brady violations where willful misconduct is so obvious that you have to be an idiot to pretend it doesn't exist.

The case has come a long way, it is still in the works and has been allowed to proceed againt San Diego County District Attorney Dumanis, County Medical Examiner Glenn Wagner and the federal government as defendants, as well as Deputy District Attorney Laura Gunn. They all have lost bids to have the suit dropped against them.

Cynthia Sommer's suit against Dumanis proceeds Page 1 of 2 | UTSanDiego.com

So I have hope that justice can be served for her, her children and her family that went bankrupt trying to defend her.

I can't figure why the case was allowed to be dropped against AFIP though, since they are the ones who contaminated the first set of samples. But I guess that is life.

 

[CaféAuLait]

If you go to page in the link you just provided to the decision you will see that the court is explaining how the prosecutor screwed up.

I guess that makes me right that the defense did not dig up an obscure law, the prosecutor chose the wrong section of the penal code and argued the wrong legal theory in court. The trial judge didn't catch it, which would have saved a lot of time and effort. Instead of trying to convince me to interpret the facts in the same incorrect way you insist on doing you should accept the fact that prosecutors make mistakes just as often as anyone else.

If you want to be angry and outraged, get mad at the idiot that reads a law that says the guy has to be pretending to be the woman's husband and then charges a guy that is pretending to be a boyfriend, not me.

( empahasis added)

I am hardly angry at you, I am unsure why you believe such.

Please show where it stated in the law the proscutor charged him with (PENAL CODE
SECTION 261-269) that he had to pretend to be her husband, there were many definitions there.

This is the code he was charged under as stated in the appeal:

CA Codes (pen:261-269)

Did you read the decision? The prosecutor argued that he pretended to be her husband during the trial, that made that a requirement of the crime. He was wrong, and the conviction was overturned.

No, I did not see that he argued such, can you point me to where it says that in the decision? I see a lot of legal and previous case jargon mentioning husband, but I do not see where it said he argued such. Maybe I am blind tonight?

 

[Politico]

How can someone PRETEND to be someone's boy/girl friend without the "victim" knowing that they are not the right person?

You can't.

Yet the man convicted told police he knew that the victim thought that he was her boyfriend and not him and he knew he was tricking her.

What does that have to do with anything? Yeah she thought he was her boyfriend for a few moments just like anyone would who was asleep. Once she woke up it was a different story. So yes you can't.

 

[CaféAuLait]

You can't.

Yet the man convicted told police he knew that the victim thought that he was her boyfriend and not him and he knew he was tricking her.

What does that have to do with anything? Yeah she thought he was her boyfriend for a few moments just like anyone would who was asleep. Once she woke up it was a different story. So yes you can't.

It was a matter of minutes, she had been drinking AND when she went to sleep she went to sleep WITH her boyfriend. He left the house and that is when the other guy snuck in and tricked her. So I can see something like that happening in the dark, after a night of drinking, being sound asleep and for a short time given she fell asleep with her boyfriend. Who would think in a sleepy, drunk state that your boyfriend left and another person snuck in?

 

[CaféAuLait]

He even said when she was kissing him back (obviously semi conscious) he knew that she thought he was her boyfriend. Why blame the victim, I just don't get it.

 

[Noomi]

Court Frees Rapist, Rules Only Married Women Protected by Law

A California appeals court overturned the rape conviction of a man accused of pretending to be a woman's boyfriend when he snuck into her bedroom and had sex with her, concluding that the law doesn't protect unmarried women in such cases.

Citing an obscure state law from 1872, the panel ruled that an impersonator who tricks someone into having sex with him can only be found guilty of rape if he is pretending to be a married woman's husband.

"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.

Calif. Court Finds Single Woman Not Protected By Rape Law - ABC News

How in the hell is the law still around?

I can't believe they had to cite a law over 100 years old to justify releasing this criminal. Ridiculous.

 

[AmyNation]

He even said when she was kissing him back (obviously semi conscious) he knew that she thought he was her boyfriend. Why blame the victim, I just don't get it.

I know, it seems odd that so many are siding with the rapist when the court found him guilty, and he confessed to the crime.