Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Monterey County Super. Ct. No. SS051037.
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT
RUSHING, P.J.
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on October 19, 2007, be modified as follows:
1. On page 11, line one, the number “11.61.1” is changed to read “10.61.1” so the sentence reads:
CALJIC No. 10.61.1, on the other hand, is based on section 1127d, subdivision (a), which provides, in relevant part: “In any criminal prosecution for the crime of rape . . . the jury shall not be instructed that it may be inferred that a person who has previously consented to sexual intercourse with persons other than the defendant or with the defendant would be therefore more likely to consent to sexual intercourse again.
2. On page 11, line 14, the number “1027d” is changed to “1127d” so the sentence reads:
Section 1127d was part of a legislative “reform in the law of rape and other forms of sexual assault,” that included “one of the nation’s first ‘rape shield’ laws, limiting the admissibility of evidence of a complainant’s sexual history except under narrowly defined conditions and prohibiting an instruction that an ‘unchaste woman’ is more likely to have consented to sexual intercourse.”
3. On page 11, line 20, the number “1027d” is changed to “1127d” so the sentence reads:
Neither section 1127d nor CALJIC No. 10.61.1 expressly or implicitly add to, modify, or refine the statutory definition of consent.
There is no change in the judgment.
WE CONCUR: PREMO, J., ELIA, J.