People v. Clark

In People v. Guthreau (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 436 [ 162 Cal.Rptr. 376 ], we held the testimony from a “rape expert” was inadmissible in a criminal prosecution for forcible rape (Pen. Code, §261, subd. 2). We explained the issue is not whether in some abstract sense the victim’s resistance was reasonable, but whether the resistance was sufficient to reasonably manifest her refusal to the defendant. (Id., at p. 441.) The expert’s opinion of the prosecutrix’s resistance was irrelevant to the defendant’s good faith reasonable belief as to the resistance. (Id., at p. 442.) In this appeal by defendant from judgment of convictions of forcible rape and oral copulation (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (c)) we decide the error in admitting the rape expert’s testimony was prejudicial. We reverse the judgment.

The test of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ], requires our examination of the entire record in order to determine whether it is reasonably probable a result more favorable to the defendant would have been reached in the absence of the erroneously admitted evidence. In light of that mandate, we fully summarize both the prosecution and defense…