Opinion ID: 1359265
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence Rape in Concert

Text: (22) Defendant Ross argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict finding him guilty of rape in concert. (§ 264.1.) Relying on People v. Wheeler (1977) 71 Cal. App.3d 902, 907 [139 Cal. Rptr. 737], he asserts that rape in concert occurs only when the victim is subjected to a gang-type sexual assault. He argues that the rapes here were not gang-type assaults, and thus did not constitute rape in concert within the meaning of section 264.1. In People v. Wheeler, supra, 71 Cal. App.3d 902, the defendant and an associate, Williams, fondled the victim and forcibly removed her clothing; thereafter, the defendant held the victim's arm while Williams raped her. In the course of discussing the adequacy of the trial court's instruction on the statutory requirement that the rape be accomplished by force and violence, the Court of Appeal commented that section 264.1 provides increased penalties for those who participate in gang-type sexual assaults. (71 Cal. App.3d at p. 907.) Similarly, the Court of Appeal in People v. Calimee (1975) 49 Cal. App.3d 337, 341 [122 Cal. Rptr. 658], while rejecting the defendant's contention that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the term in concert was synonymous with aiding and abetting, stated: The obvious purpose of [section 264.1] is to provide increased punishment when there is a gang sexual assault and to insure that those who participate in such assaults, either by personally engaging in the ultimate sexual act or by voluntarily helping others to accomplish it, receive the enhanced punishment. Other Courts of Appeal, relying on Wheeler and Calimee, have agreed that the Legislature's purpose in enacting section 264.1 was to discourage gang type assaults. ( People v. Guiterrez (1991) 232 Cal. App.3d 1624, 1639 [284 Cal. Rptr. 230]; People v. Jones (1989) 212 Cal. App.3d 966, 969 [260 Cal. Rptr. 853]; but compare People v. Lopez (1981) 116 Cal. App.3d 882, 887 [172 Cal. Rptr. 374] [If the Legislature wanted to limit section 264.1 to gang rape with only the active participants being held culpable, it could easily have done so....].) None of the decisions cited above, however, suggests that evidence of the type offered by the prosecution in this case is insufficient to support a jury's finding that a rape occurred in concert. The evidence here showed that while his companions held other members of Mary Taylor's family at gunpoint, defendant Ross grabbed Mary by the hair and pushed her into the bathroom, where he forcibly raped her twice. He then ordered her to remain in the bathroom, and one of his crime partners, whom Mary Taylor identified as Evan Malett, entered the bathroom and sexually assaulted her. Although none of Ross's companions were in the bathroom when he was raping Mary, they were present in the home where the rape occurred, and their acts assisted him in committing the rape. This evidence, in our view, is sufficient to support the jury's verdict finding Ross guilty of rape in concert. [22]