Gonzalez

People v. Gonzalez

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 336·33 Cal. App. 4th 1440·39 Cal. Rptr. 2d 778·95 Daily Journal DAR 4410·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2587
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 7, 1995B082142California1,329 words

Opinion

Opinion

Appellant, Miguel Angel Gonzalez, was convicted by a

jury of two counts of assault with intent to commit unlawful oral copulation (Pen. Code, §§ 220, 288a, subd. (c)) and one count of assault with a deadly weapon or by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)). The jury found that appellant used a deadly weapon in the commission of one assault with intent to commit unlawful oral copulation (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b)). He appeals from the judgment.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in instructing the jury with CALJIC No. 1.23.1 (1991 rev.) (5th ed. pocket pt.) regarding consent because the definition of consent in that instruction violates due process.

Facts

Viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment (People v. Iniguez (1994) 7 Cal.4th 847, 854 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 258 , 872 P.2d 1183 ]), the evidence established the following. In the early morning hours of October 25, 1992, appellant phoned Diane A. and invited her to go out to have breakfast with him. Diane agreed. At Diane’s request, appellant took her to his house. While they were watching television in the living room, Diane asked whether they would…

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.