Rape conviction overturned because victim was not married
LOS ANGELES (AP) - California appellate judges urged legislators to update an arcane 19th century law, as the panel reversed the rape conviction of a man who authorities say pretended to be a sleeping woman's boyfriend before initiating intercourse.
The Los Angeles-based appeals court said that the 1872 measure doesn't give single women the same protections as their married counterparts in certain rape cases.
Julio Morales had been convicted and sentenced to three years in state prison, found guilty of entering a woman's bedroom late one night once her boyfriend had gone home and initiating sexual intercourse while she was asleep, after a night of drinking.
But a panel of judges overturned the trial court's conviction and remanded it for retrial, in a decision posted this week.
The victim said her boyfriend was in the room when she fell asleep, and they'd decided against having sex that night because he didn't have a condom and he had to be somewhere early the next day.
Morales pretended to be her boyfriend in the darkened room, and it wasn't until a ray of light from outside the room flashed across his face that she realized he wasn't her boyfriend, according to prosecutors.
"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.
The appeals court added that prosecutors argued two theories, and it was unclear if the jury convicted Morales because the defendant tricked the victim or because sex with a sleeping person is defined as rape by law.
The court said the case should be retried to ensure the jury's conviction is supported by the latter argument.
The decision also urges the Legislature to examine the law, which was first written in response to cases in England that concluded fraudulent impersonation to have sex wasn't rape because the victim would consent, even if they were being tricked into thinking the perpetrator was their husband.
Willhite noted that the law has been applied inconsistently over the years in California.
In 2010, a similar law in Idaho prevented an unmarried woman from pressing rape charges after being tricked into sex with a stranger by her then-boyfriend.
The judge called what happened "despicable" but said the state's law left the court with no choice. Idaho's law was amended to cover all women in 2011.
Morales' attorney Edward Schulman declined comment when reached by phone Thursday.
Prior to the conviction, Schulman had argued Morales believed the sex was consensual because the victim responded to his kisses and caresses, according to the decision.
The Los Angeles-based appeals court said that the 1872 measure doesn't give single women the same protections as their married counterparts in certain rape cases.
Julio Morales had been convicted and sentenced to three years in state prison, found guilty of entering a woman's bedroom late one night once her boyfriend had gone home and initiating sexual intercourse while she was asleep, after a night of drinking.
But a panel of judges overturned the trial court's conviction and remanded it for retrial, in a decision posted this week.
The victim said her boyfriend was in the room when she fell asleep, and they'd decided against having sex that night because he didn't have a condom and he had to be somewhere early the next day.
Morales pretended to be her boyfriend in the darkened room, and it wasn't until a ray of light from outside the room flashed across his face that she realized he wasn't her boyfriend, according to prosecutors.
"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.
The appeals court added that prosecutors argued two theories, and it was unclear if the jury convicted Morales because the defendant tricked the victim or because sex with a sleeping person is defined as rape by law.
The court said the case should be retried to ensure the jury's conviction is supported by the latter argument.
The decision also urges the Legislature to examine the law, which was first written in response to cases in England that concluded fraudulent impersonation to have sex wasn't rape because the victim would consent, even if they were being tricked into thinking the perpetrator was their husband.
Willhite noted that the law has been applied inconsistently over the years in California.
In 2010, a similar law in Idaho prevented an unmarried woman from pressing rape charges after being tricked into sex with a stranger by her then-boyfriend.
The judge called what happened "despicable" but said the state's law left the court with no choice. Idaho's law was amended to cover all women in 2011.
Morales' attorney Edward Schulman declined comment when reached by phone Thursday.
Prior to the conviction, Schulman had argued Morales believed the sex was consensual because the victim responded to his kisses and caresses, according to the decision.
I have no words to describe my shock by this...
Wow ... I don't even know what to say... just wow.
Common sense, who needs it.
 @dkgiovenco Law often disregards common sense.
"Prior to the conviction, Schulman had argued Morales believed the sex was consensual because the victim responded to his kisses and caresses, according to the decision."
Â
Did Morales and the victim know each other prior to the rape? If they were strangers then Morales has to be a complete effing idiot if he thinks that it was consensual after breaking into a strangers house.
 @Tattooed_Angel Nowhere does it state that the guy broke into anyone's house.
Â
Using the above article, it would be my best guess that there was a party going on and the guy was still there from the party.
I can't decide who is the biggest slimeball here... Defendant, judge or lawyer. Dispicable doesn't cover it in my book.
Are we in the Middle Ages? I want to barf now.
Let them confiscate your guns and everything will be ok.
@Rick4001CS we need another gun control law... that is for sure... it would have prevented this atrocious ruling...
 @Rick4001CS A professional would probably describe you as anal retentive...do you get aroused when looking down at that small hole at the end of the barrel?
Once again....others trying to tell us what is rape.... If a woman says it is rape...unless she is a nut ball... then it's rape. Why was this idiot in her room? Waited for the boyfriend to leave, etc. he knew what he was doing.
 @lizziemac No. Absolutely not. This is why we have the justice system. It would be no better than the Salem witch trials if we just believed every rape accusation at face value. Investigations need to be done to ensure the validity of the claims these women are making, because some are making false accusations. Our courts operate under the common law principal (or are supposed to) that it is better that 100 guilty men walk free than 1 innocent man be wrongly convicted. You have a right to a fair and speedy trial by a jury of your peers for a reason, because it is all too easy to find yourself accused of something you didn't do.
Â
That all said....this is an obvious case of rape and I can't fathom why these appeals court judges are pulling an archaic law out of their a**....or why the law ever said that in the first place.
 @dg54321 Responding as to why the law said that in the first place. It all has to do with how society viewed women at that time. In 1877, women were still seen as second class citizens, amny women were fighting this thinking, but progress is always slow (we didn't even get the right to vote until 1920 when the 19th amendment was ratified) . Women were still widely viewed as property, married women were afforded these protections more to protect them as their husbands property than as an individual, and during that time there was still the wide spread misconception that is a sexually active single woman was asking for it because she was engaging in immoral behavior in the first place.Â
@dg54321 @lizziemac My guess would be the defendent's appeals lawyers are the ones who brought up the old law & the judges just felt they had to agree with it. And old laws frequently make NO sense whatsoever in today's society.
This comment has been deleted
Â
I guess you consider the 14th amendment of the Constitution being something that is next to nothing.
Â
The  appeals court did its job be reviewing the law as it applies to the case in front of them and determined that is wasn't being adhered to as it was written and they encouraged the legislative branch to review and create a new law that will replace this one that is clearly dated.
Â
Want to be upset be upset with the California legislative branch for allowing this law to remain on the books for as long as it has.
That is just insane. Â
she couldnt tell it wasnt her boyfriend??Â
 @moondog Apparently she was drunk.
 @OrcasThunder  @moondog And it was dark.
 @alaska_dreamin  @moondog And asleep...
This is out of the 9th circuit court of appeals. This court is so out of control it needs to be tossed in to the Pacific. It will follow the letter of the law when it can get a criminal off they it will follow the âspiritâ of the law if it will give the advantage to the criminal. Most of the Judges are carbon copies of the King County judges and the ones Olympia appoints to our appeals benches. Time to kick them out and put the victimsâ rights first and the criminals can just rot in jail!!
 @bustedupredneck No, this is NOT from the Ninth Circuit court, it is from the CALIFORNIA appeals court.
 @bustedupredneck The Washington state appeals judges are elected not appointed by Olympia; the same is true for the King County judges.
@bustedupredneck --- Duh...there's the problem right there. The 9th Circuit is the laughing stock of appeals courts.
Immorales
 @Komo Dragon No. Julio Morales.
I believe several years ago I heard about a husband who caught his wife cheating on him. Â He was trying to have her hung in public using because an arcane law had never been updated properly. Â
Â
Outrageous! Time to change the law.
 @GorgeTraveler waaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy past time!
@GorgeTraveler No. Time to change the judges that sit on the bench and abust the law to give the crimminals the advantage. The 9th court has done this for years and we the people let the polititions do it to us all the time. Vote the constitutuion not the feel good voting that goes on.
Â
 @bustedupredneck  @GorgeTraveler NOT the Ninth Circuit.