BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 59|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 59
Author: Evans (D), et al.
Amended: 4/16/13
Vote: 27 - Urgency
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 6-0, 2/26/13
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Block, Knight, Liu, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: De Le�n
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-0, 4/08/13
AYES: De Le�n, Walters, Gaines, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
SUBJECT : Crimes: sex crimes
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill expands the definition of rape and
specified sex crimes committed by fraud or impersonation to
include the occurrence where an individual submits under the
belief that the person committing the act is the victims sexual
partner," as defined, and this belief is induced by artifice,
pretense, or concealment by the perpetrator, with the intent to
induce the victim's belief.
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides that rape is an act of sexual
intercourse accomplished against the will of the victim. As
relevant to this bill, some of the circumstances establishing
rape are the following:
1.Force or coercion: The rape is accomplished against a
CONTINUED
SB 59
Page
2
person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or
fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person of
another.
2.Perpetrator poses as victim's spouse: Where a person submits
under the belief that the person committing the act is the
victim's spouse, and this belief is induced by any artifice,
pretense, or concealment practiced by the accused, with intent
to induce the belief.
3.Victim is unconscious or unconscious of the nature of the act:
Where the victim is unconscious of the nature of the act, and
this is known to the accused. As used in this paragraph,
"unconscious of the nature of the act" is defined as incapable
of resisting because the victim meets one of the following
conditions:
A. Was unconscious or asleep.
B. Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant
that the act occurred.
C. Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of
the essential characteristics of the act due to the
perpetrator's fraud in fact.
D. Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of
the essential characteristics of the act due to the
perpetrator's fraudulent representation that the sexual
penetration served a professional purpose when it served
no professional purpose.
This bill:
1.Provides that rape, or felonious oral copulation, sodomy or
sexual penetration, occurs where the victim submits to the
sexual act because he or she believes that the person
committing the act is the victim's "sexual partner," and this
belief is induced by any artifice, pretense or concealment by
the perpetrator, with the intent to induce the victim's
belief.
2.Defines a "sexual partner" as any person with whom the victim
has engaged in consensual sexual intercourse, oral copulation,
sodomy, sexual penetration or the touching of an intimate part
of the body.
CONTINUED
SB 59
Page
3
3.Defines an intimate part of the body to include the genitals,
anus, or buttocks of any person, and the breasts of a woman.
Background
This bill was prompted by the well-publicized reversal of the
rape conviction of Julio Morales. (People v. Morales (2013) 212
Cal.App.4th 583.) Morales was charged with and convicted of
rape of an unconscious person. The prosecution's theory of the
case was that Morales had intercourse with the victim while she
was asleep. (The victim is called "Jane Doe" in the opinion.)
The 2nd District Court of Appeal reversed Morales' conviction
because the jury could have convicted him on the invalid theory
that he had induced the victim to believe that he was her
boyfriend.
The appellate court found that there was ample evidence to
convict Morales of rape under the prosecution's theory that
Morales had intercourse with the victim while she was asleep.
The court ordered that Morales be retried on this basis. The
jury instructions allowed the jury to convict Morales of rape on
the invalid basis that Morales was able to engage in intercourse
with the victim because he induced her to believe that he was
her boyfriend. The invalid theory arose because Morales claimed
that the victim was awake when they began having intercourse and
that she likely believed he was her boyfriend. The prosecutor
then argued to the jurors that even if they believed Morales, he
was still guilty of rape by fraud. However, under existing
California law, it is not rape for a person to induce a woman to
have sexual intercourse with him by posing as her boyfriend.
Under such circumstances, the perpetrator is guilty of rape only
where he induces or leads the victim to believe that he is her
spouse. (People v. Morales, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th 583,
586-587, 589-597.)
Related Legislation
AB 65 (Achadjian) 2013, an urgency measure, would expand the
definitions of rape, sodomy, oral copulation, and sexual
penetration by fraud to include the occurrence where the victim
submits to the specified act under the belief that the person
committing the act is someone other than the accused.
AB 765 (Achadjian) 2011 would have expanded the definition of
CONTINUED
SB 59
Page
4
rape by fraud to include the circumstance that occurs where a
person submits to the act of sexual intercourse under the belief
that the person committing the act is the victim's cohabitant.
This bill was held in the Senate Committee on Public Safety.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Potential minor near-term increase in state incarceration
costs, likely less than $25,000 (General Fund) annually, for
increased state prison commitments to the extent expanding the
definition of specified crimes results in additional felony
convictions. Out-year costs could potentially be greater due
to the cumulative cost effect of overlapping base sentence
terms, parole, and/or sentence enhancements applicable to the
specified crimes.
Potential future cost pressure of $60,000 (General Fund) per
prison commitment per year to the extent the long-term impact
of pending legislation considered in aggregate affects the
state prison population to a degree that undermines the
state's ability to reduce or sustain prison overcrowding below
the federal court-imposed population limit.
Likely minor impact to state trial court workload incurred by
the Judicial Branch to the extent the provisions of this bill
result in additional felony court filings and related court
time.
Minor, absorbable workload impact to the DOJ associated with
increased sex offender registration, and minor
non-reimbursable local law enforcement costs, offset to a
degree by minor fine revenue.
SUPPORT : (Verified 4/16/13)
Attorney General Kamala Harris
AFSCME
California Coalition Against Sexual Assault
California Partnership to End Violence
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Chief Probation Officers of California
CONTINUED
SB 59
Page
5
City Council and Commission on the Status of Women of the City
of Glendale
City of Berkeley
City of West Hollywood
Crime Victims United of California
Humboldt County District Attorney
Junior Leagues of California
Marin County District Attorney
Napa County District Attorney
Napa Emergency Women's Services
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Peace Over Violence
San Bernardino County Sheriff
Sonoma County Commission on the Status of Women
JG:nl 4/16/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED