Fraize

People v. Fraize

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 699·36 Cal. App. 4th 1722·43 Cal. Rptr. 2d 64·95 Daily Journal DAR 9853·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5827
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 24, 1995B087051California1,435 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vogel, J.

Introduction

Following a court trial, defendant Larry W. Fraize was convicted of two counts of violating Penal Code section 288a, subdivision (e) which prohibits a jail inmate from engaging in oral copulation, even if consensual. On this appeal, defendant contends the statute does not apply to his actions because the statute only criminalizes oral copulation by a jail inmate and at the time of the events it is undisputed he was a deputy sheriff. We reject this contention, finding defendant’s convictions are proper based upon an aiding and abetting analysis.

Factual and Procedural Background

The pertinent facts are uncontested and can be simply stated. On May 4, 1993, defendant, a deputy sheriff, was assigned to work as a bailiff in a courtroom of the Los Angeles Superior Court system. That day, Ashley R. and Christina W. were jail inmates who had been transported to the courthouse. While the two women were in the lockup facility, defendant entered and directed Ashley R. first to orally copulate Christina W. and then to orally copulate him.

Based upon these events, a complaint was filed charging defendant with two counts of Penal Code, section 288a, subdivision (e).…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.