Opinion ID: 2507905
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence Victim Was Alive When Raped.

Text: Defendant next asserts that substantial evidence was not offered at trial that April James was raped before death (§ 261), in violation of the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. He contends that the only conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence is that he formed the intent to rape April only after he killed her, and that she was dead when he penetrated her. Accordingly, defendant asserts that we must reverse his convictions for rape and forcibly committing a lewd act on a child under 14 years of age, as well as the true findings on the two special circumstance allegations based on those crimes: killing in the commission of the rape of April James (§§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17), 261, subd. (a)(2)); and killing in the commission of lewd and lascivious conduct on a child under 14, April James. (§§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17), 288, subd. (b)(1).) Reviewing the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below, we reject this claim. ( People v. Lenart (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1107, 1125, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 592, 88 P.3d 498; People v. Mayfield, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 767, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 928 P.2d 485.)
Four types of evidence were introduced at trial on the timing of April's death: (1) defendant's statements; (2) the condition of April's body at the crime scene; (3) the expert testimony of Dr. William Ernoehazy, who testified for the prosecution; and (4) the expert testimony of Dr. Thomas Rogers, who testified for the defense. Detective Bennett confronted defendant with evidence that April had been raped, to which defendant responded, I didn't realize this happened.... When I was kneeling there next to her[,] ... I think it happened right.... Detective Bennett asked, She was already dead then, right? Defendant responded, Yeah. Defendant claimed that after April was dead he had inserted his penis into her vagina, but quickly stopped and did not ejaculate. April's body was found clothed only in a blood-soaked sweatshirt; her pantiesstained by blood and urinehad been removed and were later found in the dirty clothes hamper. The body had a number of stab wounds to the chest and back, and a contusion on the forehead. A defensive wound was found on April's left wrist. While the stab wounds in her chest corresponded to tears in the sweatshirt, the stab wounds in her back did not so correspond. There also was an extensive tear of one to one and one-half inches on the perineum between the vagina and anus, with little visible hemorrhaging from the torn tissue. Penetration had been made by an erect penis or large blunt object. The blood pattern on the body indicated that the sweatshirt had been pulled fairly high up on the chest at the time the wounds were inflicted. Dr. Ernoehazy acknowledged that there was no hemorrhaging in the soft tissue adjacent to the perineal tear, which suggested that April was dead when she was penetrated. Nonetheless, he opined that she was alive at the time she was raped based on the following evidence: April had been stabbed several times in the chest and her ascending and descending aorta were perforated, which would have seriously interfered with circulation to the lower portion of the body. But as no wound penetrated the heart itself, April's heart would have continued to beat for several minutes and sustained full brain function, even though blood pressure would drop significantly and respiration would be shallow. Because there was a lack of drying to the skin around the perineal tear, it indicated a predeath injury that occurred within a short time of the stabbing. Dr. Rogers, a forensic medical expert, based his opinion on an analysis of Dr. Ernoehazy's autopsy report. Rogers indicated that had April been alive at the time the perineal injury was created, there would have been a hemorrhage of the surrounding tissue. Reduced blood pressure may have made this hemorrhage difficult to see without the aid of a microscope, but no hemorrhage at all would indicate that April was not alive at the time of the perineal injury.
Certainly, rape requires a live victim, and the intent to have sexual intercourse with a dead body qualifies as neither rape nor attempted rape. ( People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 524, 3 Cal. Rptr.2d 677, 822 P.2d 385.) Intent to rape may be inferred from all of the facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence ( People v. Matson (1974) 13 Cal.3d 35, 40-42, 117 Cal.Rptr. 664, 528 P.2d 752; see § 21), and is proven by acts, conduct and circumstances connected with the offense. ( People v. Van Wyke (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 839, 843, 206 P.2d 53.) Where the defendant does attempt to rape or sodomize a victim, reasonably or mistakenly believing that the victim is alive, the perpetrator is guilty of having attempted the underlying felony. ( People v. Hart (1999) 20 Cal.4th 546, 611, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 132, 976 P.2d 683.) After intent to rape is established, the special circumstance is applicable regardless of whether actual penetration occurred before or after death. ( Ibid., citing People v. Kelly, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 525, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 677, 822 P.2d 385.) The jury was properly instructed on the legal definition of death and on how to weigh the opinions of conflicting experts. It ultimately chose to give more weight to the testimony of Dr. Ernoehazy, and his testimony is consistent with the physical evidence. Both his testimony and the physical evidence support the conclusion that the intercourse was against April's will and that she was alive at the moment of penetration. For the felony-murder rape and felony-murder sexual-child-molestation special circumstances to have been found true, the jury had only to find that the rape was an `independent purpose' in the killing of April ( People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 387, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 935 P.2d 708), such that defendant intended to commit rape and the rape and killing were part of one continuous transaction. ( People v. Proctor (1992) 4 Cal.4th 499, 536, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 340, 842 P.2d 1100.) This much was clearly established by the evidence. ( People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 888, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857, 978 P.2d 15; People v. Proctor, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 536, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 340, 842 P.2d 1100.) Reviewing the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below, we conclude the evidence offered at trial on the timing of April's death is sufficient to support defendant's convictions and the true findings for the special circumstances. ( People v. Lewis, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 642, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 629, 22 P.3d 392; People v. Johnson, supra, 26 Cal.3d at p. 578, 162 Cal.Rptr. 431, 606 P.2d 738.)