Opinion ID: 1233910
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of evidence of sodomy

Text: (2) Defendant does not contend that the evidence is insufficient to support the first degree murder or rape convictions or the rape-murder special circumstance, but he does contend that there is insufficient evidence to support the sodomy conviction or the sodomy-murder special circumstance. Although defendant acknowledges that the pathologist called by the prosecution testified (1) that when he examined the victim's body with an ultraviolet light during the autopsy, he noticed fluorescence, indicating the possible presence of semen, in the vaginal and anal areas, (2) that seminal fluid was subsequently found in the anal area, and (3) that the victim's anus was dilated, indicating that at or about the time of death, penetration had been made into the anus, defendant contends that this evidence is not sufficient to support a sodomy conviction, or a sodomy-murder special circumstance, because it does not adequately prove that the victim was alive at the time of the penetration. Section 286 provides that [s]odomy is sexual conduct consisting of contact between the penis of one person and the anus of another person, and section 287 provides that [a]ny sexual penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime of sodomy. (See People v. Martinez (1986) 188 Cal. App.3d 19, 24-25 [232 Cal. Rptr. 736].) Although we have found no case that discusses the question of whether the offense of sodomy requires that the victim be alive at the time of penetration, with respect to the analogous crime of rape the California authorities uniformly hold that the victim must be alive at the moment of penetration in order to support a conviction of rape.... ( People v. Stanworth (1974) 11 Cal.3d 588, 604, fn. 15 [114 Cal. Rptr. 250, 522 P.2d 1058]; People v. Sellers (1988) 203 Cal. App.3d 1042, 1050 [250 Cal. Rptr. 345].) The People do not suggest that the same requirement does not apply to sodomy. Because the sodomy statute, like the rape statute (§ 261), defines the crime as sexual contact with another person rather than with a body, we conclude that the offense of sodomy requires that the victim be alive at the time of penetration. [3] Nonetheless, we cannot agree with defendant's contention that the evidence presented in this case was insufficient to support a sodomy conviction. Although the prosecution's pathologist may not have been able to determine clinically whether penetration occurred shortly prior to death, at death, or just after death, in the absence of any evidence suggesting that the victim's assailant intended to have sexual conduct with a corpse (cf. People v. Sellers, supra, 203 Cal. App.3d at pp. 1049-1050), we believe that the jury could reasonably have inferred from the evidence that the assailant engaged in sexual conduct with the victim while she was still alive rather than after she was already dead. Under the applicable standard of review (see People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576-578 [162 Cal. Rptr. 431, 606 P.2d 738, 16 A.L.R.4th 1255]; Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 318-319 [61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573-574, 99 S.Ct. 2781]), we conclude that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the essential elements of sodomy beyond a reasonable doubt. (Cf. People v. Morales (1989) 48 Cal.3d 527, 552-553 [257 Cal. Rptr. 64, 770 P.2d 244].) [4] Accordingly, we reject the defendant's claim that the evidence is insufficient to support the sodomy conviction or the sodomy-murder special circumstance. [5]