Opinion ID: 2633881
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Sexual Intercourse Element of Rape

Text: Defendant contends the trial court inadequately instructed on the crime of rape because it failed to define the term sexual intercourse as meaning vaginal intercourse. [36] (See Holt, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 676, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 782, 937 P.2d 213.) He observes that he testified at trial that he sodomized both victims (after they were dead) in addition to having vaginal intercourse, and that forcible sodomy, at the time of his trial, was not an offense supporting a felony-murder conviction. ( Hughes, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 368, 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 401, 39 P.3d 432.) The Attorney General contends that because defendant did not request a clarifying instruction defining the term sexual intercourse, he therefore forfeited his appellate claim. The longstanding general rule is that the failure to request clarification of an instruction that is otherwise a correct statement of law forfeits an appellate claim of error based upon the instruction given. (See Hudson, supra, 38 Cal.4th at pp. 1011-1012, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 632, 136 P.3d 168; see also People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 1019-1020, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 997 P.2d 1044; People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 327-328, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 412, 956 P.2d 374.) We agree that defendant's failure to request that the trial court further define the meaning of the term sexual intercourse, which is the element set forth in the statute (§ 261, subd. (a)), forfeited his claim on appeal. To the extent our recent decision in Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1138, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 118, 129 P.3d 321, might be interpreted as concluding that the failure to request a similar instruction in that case did not forfeit an appellate challenge to the adequacy of the instruction given, we disapprove any such interpretation. Our statement in Guerra that the asserted error consisted of an alleged failure to instruct on' an essential element of the offense, and our citation to People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 482, footnote 7, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 180, 957 P.2d 869, cannot support a conclusion that the claim was not forfeited. When, as in Guerra and the present case, the trial court has given only an instruction on the crime of rape using the term sexual intercourse without further definition, the court correctly has instructed on this essential element of the crime, which, as explicitly set forth in the statute, is sexual intercourse between the perpetrator and the victim. (§ 261, subd. (a).) Defendant (like the defendant in Guerra ) claims only that the instruction did not clearly explain the meaning of the term used in the statute and the instruction. This is distinguishable from the circumstances present in Flood, in which the trial court did not give an instruction defining peace officer and instead told the jury that the police officers involved were peace officers, thereby removing that element from the jury's deliberations. ( Flood, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 482, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 180, 957 P.2d 869.) Thus, the general forfeiture rule applies to the claims raised in Guerra and the present case. Of course, despite defendant's failure to preserve this issue for appeal, we may review his claim of instructional error to the extent his substantial rights were affected. (§ 1259.) We previously have rejected the contention that the term sexual intercourse must be defined for the jury. ( Stitely, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 554, 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 108 P.3d 182, citing Holt, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 676, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 782, 937 P.2d 213.) Defendant presents no compelling reason for us to revisit that holding. Further, the charges and special circumstance allegations in the present case involved attempted rape. We see no possibility that because defendant testified he sodomized the victims in addition to having vaginal intercourseassuming the jury believed that portion of his testimony, despite its obvious rejection of his testimony regarding the timing of these actsany juror found that defendant attempted to rape the victims based solely upon a mistaken finding that he intended only to sodomize them. Thus, there was no need to define sexual intercourse, and no error or constitutional violation occurred.