PEOPLE v. PETERSON (1981)

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2, California.

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Roger Ray PETERSON, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 12657.

Decided: December 03, 1981

Philip R. Clarkson, San Luis Obispo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant. George Deukmejian, Atty. Gen., Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Crim. Div., Daniel J. Kremer, Asst. Atty. Gen., and A. Wells Petersen and Keith I. Motley, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

OPINION

Defendant was convicted of oral copulation with a person under 18 years of age. He testified to a reasonable belief that the victim was over 18 and requested an instruction that this was a valid defense under the rationale of People v. Hernandez, 61 Cal.2d 529, 39 Cal.Rptr. 361, 393 P.2d 673, which held that such a belief was a defense to the crime of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under 18 years of age. The instruction was refused.

We are unable to detect any valid distinction between unlawful sexual intercourse and oral copulation within the rationale of Hernandez based upon which orifice of the human body is used. The refusal to so instruct was prejudicial error. It not only deprived the defendant of a crucial defense, it deprived him of his only defense.

Judgment reversed.

GARDNER, Presiding Justice.

McDANIEL and TAMURA,* JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network