In re B.M. CA4/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 11, 2015E061724California1,746 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 24, 2014, minor sexually assaulted Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2. Minor

forced Jane Doe 1 to orally copulate him in the bathroom of his house, forcing her to

swallow his ejaculate, ignoring her pleas of “‘No, don’t do it.’” He also forced Jane Doe

2 to orally copulate him in his bedroom, pushing her head down with one hand and

forcing her mouth onto his penis with the other. Other pertinent facts will be discussed as

necessary.

The Riverside County District Attorney charged minor with the following crimes:

Allegation 11—forcible oral copulation of Jane Doe 1 (Pen. Code,2 § 288a, subd.

(c)(2)(B));

The charging document characterizes each allegation as “PARAGRAPH.” For ease of reference, we will use the term “allegation.”

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

2 Allegation 2—aggravated sexual assault (forcible oral copulation) of Jane Doe 1,

seven or more years younger than defendant (§ 269, subd. (a)(4));

Allegation 3—forcible lewd act with a minor under the age of 14, Jane Doe

(§ 288, subd. (b)(1));

Allegation 4—forcible oral copulation of Jane Doe 2 (§ 288a, subd.…

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.