People v. Bath CA6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 5, 2016H041250California7,670 words

Opinion

Opinion

Manoukian, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

A jury convicted defendant Amanpreet Singh Bath of two counts of rape by an intoxicating substance (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(3))1 and one count of kidnapping for rape (§ 209, subd. (b)(1)). The rape counts involved two victims: Vanessa Doe and N. Doe. The count of kidnapping for rape involved N. Doe only. The trial court imposed the six-year midterm for the Vanessa Doe rape, stayed the term for the N. Doe rape pursuant to section 654, and imposed a consecutive indeterminate life term for the kidnapping for rape. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of the Vanessa Doe rape; (2) the trial court erred by refusing to modify the

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. instruction on rape by an intoxicating substance; (3) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of kidnapping for rape; and (4) the trial court’s instruction on kidnapping for rape was erroneous. For reasons that we will explain, we will affirm the judgment.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Vanessa Doe Incident 1. Testimony of Vanessa Doe On the night of December 30, 2011, Vanessa…

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.