Court Opinion

ID: 9796259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:53:03.005855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:49:24.713641
License: Public Domain

CHIN, J.
I respectfully dissent.
The majority holds that, for purposes of Penal Code section 667.61, subdivision (g), sex offenses occurred on a “single occasion” if they were committed in close temporal and spatial proximity.1 (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 107.) It necessarily finds that the term “single occasion” in this statute has a different meaning from the substantially similar term “separate occasions” in section 667.6, subdivision (d). It finds that, “[ajlthough the Court of Appeal’s interpretation [that the two terms have the same meaning] is not implausible, it is not persuasive” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 105) for the following reasons: (1) the phrases “separate occasions” and “single occasion” are similar but not identical; (2) the Legislature could have incorporated, or at least referred to, the section 667.6, subdivision (d) definition when it drafted section 667.61, subdivision (g), but did not; (3) in the absence of an express definition, the phrase “single occasion” should be interpreted according to its “ordinary, generally understood meaning” of “at least a close temporal and spatial proximity between two events”; and (4) the rule of lenity supports the conclusion that the Legislature intended to impose no more than one indeterminate sentence per victim per episode of sexually assaultive behavior. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 105-107.) Unlike the majority, I find the Court of Appeal’s reasoning to be both sound and persuasive.
No reason appears to interpret the virtually identical terms—“single occasion” and “separate occasions”—to have two very different meanings. Statutes may not be construed in isolation, but must be harmonized with *112reference to the entire scheme of the law of which they are a part. (People v. Thomas (1992) 4 Cal.4th 206, 210 [14 Cal.Rptr.2d 174, 841 P.2d 159].) “The Legislature ‘is deemed to be aware of statutes and judicial decisions already in existence, and to have enacted ... a statute in light thereof.’ ” (People v. McGuire (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 687, 694 [18 Cal.Rptr.2d 12].) When legislation has been judicially construed and a subsequent statute on a similar subject uses identical or substantially similar language, the usual presumption is that the Legislature intended the same construction, unless a contrary intent clearly appears. (In re Jerry R. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1432, 1437 [35 Cal.Rptr.2d 155].) Both section 667.61, subdivision (g) and section 667.6, subdivision (d) pertain to sentencing of sex offenses and the two statutes are closely interrelated. Section 667.61 was enacted in 1994 (Stats. 1994, 1st Ex. Sess. 1993-1994, ch. 14, § 1, p. 8570), after the enactment of section 667.6, subdivision (d) in 1979. (Stats. 1979, ch. 944, § 10, p. 3258.) Of the eight offenses listed in section 667.61 when it was enacted, six of the sexual offenses were also specified in section 667.6, subdivision (d). The legislative definition of “separate occasions” was added to section 667.6, subdivision (d) in 1986 (Stats. 1986, ch. 1431, § 1, p. 5128), nearly a decade before the enactment of section 667.61, and has been subjected to judicial construction in numerous appellate court decisions.
The express legislative purpose for expressly defining the phrase “separate occasions” in section 667.6, subdivision (d) was “to abrogate the decision in [People v. Craft (1986) 41 Cal.3d 554 [224 Cal.Rptr. 626, 715 P.2d 585]], and to establish an objective test for determining whether sex crimes against a single victim occurred on separate occasions.” (Stats. 1986, ch. 1431, § 2, p. 5129.) Craft had sought to resolve a conflict in the lower courts concerning the meaning of the phrase “separate occasions,” which had not been defined in the statute. (People v. Craft, supra, 41 Cal.3d 554 (Craft).)
Before we attempted to clarify the meaning of “separate occasions” in Craft, a line of cases held that sexual offenses that were not episodically disjoined or detached by time or proximity were not “separate occasions” within the meaning of section 667.6, subdivision (d). (See, e.g., People v. Smith (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 539, 545 [202 Cal.Rptr. 259] [subd. (d) not applicable where defendant never left the victim and all offenses occurred within two hours during which victim was forcibly driven from one city to another, forcibly taken into a residence, and then back to the car; subd. (d) applicable only in situations where a significant period of time elapsed between crimes]; People v. Reeder (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 900, 914-915 [200 Cal.Rptr. 479] [subd. (d) found not applicable where sexual offenses were committed against one victim in one uninterrupted sequence over a short period in a parked car at the same location]; People v. Collins (1983) *113143 Cal.App.3d 742, 744-746 [192 Cal.Rptr. 101] [subd. (d) not applicable where defendant and another man committed numerous forcible sex offenses against one victim during a two- or three-hour period]; see also People v. Fleming (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 540, 546 [189 Cal.Rptr. 619] [subd. (d) applicable where defendant and two others picked up 20-year-old hitchhiker victim and committed numerous sexual assaults at three distinct times and in two distinct places].)
In Craft, we observed that, because the phrase “separate occasions” appears to be “ambiguous” and “susceptible of several meanings in the context of subdivision (d),” we were required to look beyond the language of the statute. (Craft, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 560.) Attempting to distill the purpose of the statute, we focused on the fundamental assessment of blameworthiness: “As opposed to the person who commits several rapes on a single occasion, the one who rapes his victim on ‘separate occasions’ seems to deserve the harsher punishment automatically. Common moral sense teaches that other things being equal he is both more culpable because he turns away from one attack and after an opportunity for reflection undertakes another, and more harmful because he inflicts distinct trauma[] on his victim.” (Id. at p. 561.) We then construed section 667.6, subdivision (d) to apply to a defendant who, after an opportunity to reflect on his actions, nevertheless resumes his sexually assaultive behavior. Such an opportunity to reflect occurs only when sexual offenses on a single victim are “separated by a period in which the defendant has lost or abandoned his opportunity to continue his attack.” (Craft, at p. 562.)
The Legislature then amended section 667.6, by expressly defining “separate occasions” as follows: “In determining whether crimes against a single victim were committed on separate occasions . . . , the court shall consider whether, between the commission of one sex crime and another, the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to reflect upon his or her actions and nevertheless resumed sexually assaultive behavior. Neither the duration of time between crimes, nor whether or not the defendant lost or abandoned his or her opportunity to attack, shall be, in and of itself, determinative on the issue of whether the crimes in question occurred on separate occasions.” (§ 667.6, subd. (d).)
Thus, in amending section 667.6, the Legislature adopted the core analysis in Craft, i.e., that the purpose for imposing mandatory consecutive sentences under subdivision (d) is to punish more severely the more culpable defendant who after an opportunity to reflect on his actions nevertheless resumes his sexually assaultive behavior. But it rejected the narrow rule in Craft insofar as it held that such opportunity to reflect and either continue on his course or *114to bring it to an end must necessarily be understood to occur only in the event that the defendant has lost or abandoned the opportunity to continue his attack between sexual assaults. It abrogated the prior Court of Appeal opinions which relied on the duration of time or any change in physical location between crimes as the determinative factors. The legislative history reveals the aim to provide “a broader, less stringent standard to prove that multiple sex crimes occurred against the same victim on separate occasions.” (Cal. Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, Enrolled Bill Rep. on Assem. Bill No. 2295 (1985-1986 Reg. Sess.) Sept. 1986, p. 2.)
Under that broader standard, the Courts of Appeal have not required that there be a distinct break of any specific duration of time or any change in physical location under section 667.6, subdivision (d). (People v. Irvin (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1063, 1070-1071 [51 Cal.Rptr.2d 127]; People v. Plaza (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 377, 383-385 [48 Cal.Rptr.2d 710]; but see People v. Pena (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1294, 1316 [9 Cal.Rptr.2d 550]; People v. Corona (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 13, 18 [253 Cal.Rptr. 327].) Thus, before the enactment of section 667.61, the Courts of Appeal had applied the “reasonable opportunity to reflect” test to decide whether sexual crimes involved the same victim on “separate occasions” within the meaning of section 667.6, subdivision (d). (People v. Pena, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 1316; People v. Corona, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at p. 18.)
We should presume that the Legislature intended section 667.61, subdivision (g) to be construed similarly to section 667.6, subdivision (d), a statute on a similar subject using substantially similar language, unless a contrary intent clearly appears. (In re Jerry R., supra, 29 Cal.App.4th at p. 1437.) The majority does not dispute that the phrases “separate occasions” and “single occasion” are similar or that the two statutes involve a similar subject. Relying on a three strikes case (People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 598 [76 Cal.Rptr.2d 255, 957 P.2d 945]), the majority holds that, given the legislative silence on the meaning of “single occasion,” we should interpret those words, as requiring “ ‘at least a close temporal and spatial proximity between two events ....”’ (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 106.) I disagree. The rule in the three strikes law does not apply here.
Both section 667.61 and the three strikes law impose indeterminate life sentences. Thus, in that broad general sense, they are similar to each other. But, far more closely related to each other, both sections 667.61 and 667.6 are specific, interrelated components of a sentencing scheme for sexual offenses. Both statutes apply, with minor exceptions, to the same sex offenses and frequently must be applied in the same case. Section 667.61, subdivision (g), expressly refers to section 667.6. Moreover, an early version *115of the Assembly bill that led to the present statute used the word “incident,” but was later changed to “occasion.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 106, fn. 3.) “[Tjhe original terminology was criticized as follows: ‘The term “incident” is not generally used or defined in relation to sex offenses. The term “occasion” is used and defined for the application of sex offenses’ ” (Ibid.) Thus, the Legislature was aware of the interrelationship of section 667.61 with other sex offense statutes.
Presumably the Legislature, in enacting section 667.61, was also aware of its test for “separate occasions” and the underlying reasons for the express, earlier enactment of that test in section 667.6. (People v. McGuire, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 694.) Given the history of section 667.6, it is more reasonable to infer, from legislative silence on the meaning of “single occasion” in section 667.61, that the Legislature intended to continue with the same meaning as “separate occasions,” as expressly defined in section 667.6, subdivision (d). In other words, unless a contrary intent is expressed, it would appear more reasonable to infer that the Legislature intended to continue to repudiate the time and place test in the specific area of sentencing for sex offenses, the test the majority now adopts.
The majority reasons that, “When the Legislature has intended a specific definition of the similar phrase ‘separate occasion,’ it has clearly so indicated,” pointing to section 667.6, subdivision (d) as an example. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 105.) It further reasons that, in the absence of an express definition, the phrase “single occasion” should be interpreted according to its “ ‘ordinary, generally understood meaning.’ ” (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 105-107.) However, the very example that the majority relies on invalidates those premises, at least in the area of sex offense sentencing. As explained above, when the Legislature clarified the meaning of “separate occasions” in section 667.6, subdivision (d), seven years after its original enactment, it expressly rejected the “ordinary, generally understood meaning.”
Other considerations support the inference that the Legislature intended that the phrase “single occasion” under section 667.61, subdivision (g) be synonymous with “separate occasions” under section 667.6, subdivision (d). We have used the term “single occasion” to describe the singular version of “separate occasions” as it relates to section 667.6, subdivisions (c) and (d). (See, e.g., People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 341 [36 Cal.Rptr.2d 627, 885 P.2d 1040]; People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 330 [256 Cal.Rptr. 401, 768 P.2d 1078]; Craft, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 561.) I doubt that the Legislature intended to impose the confusing and cumbersome task on the trial court of determining, based on two divergent standards, both whether the same sex crimes against a single victim occurred on “separate occasions” and whether they occurred on one or more “single occasion^].”
*116The majority finds it inexplicable why the Legislature chose, in section 667.61, subdivision (g), to frame the test with the words “single occasion.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 106, fn. 3.) Section 667.61 can apply when a defendant commits a single specified sexual offense or multiple specified sexual offenses. (§ 667.61, subd. (c).) On the other hand section 667.6 subdivision (d) applies only when a defendant commits multiple specified sexual offenses. (People v. Jones (1988) 46 Cal.3d 585, 595 [250 Cal.Rptr. 635, 758 P.2d 1165].) Thus, the Legislature used the phrase “single occasion” in subdivision (g), rather than “separate occasions,” to make clear that an indeterminate term can apply to single-offense cases.
I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.