Opinion
H050406
07-25-2023
In re M.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. M.B., Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 21JV45418A)
Wilson, J.
The juvenile court sustained the allegation in a wardship petition against minor M.B. that he violated Penal Code section 261, subdivision (a)(3) by committing rape by intoxication of victim Jane Doe. The juvenile court declared M.B. a ward of the court and placed him on probation.
Undesignated references are to the Penal Code.
Alleged victims of certain offenses, including sex offenses, may be referred to in all records and during all proceedings as John or Jane Doe if reasonably necessary to protect the privacy of the person. (§ 293.5, subd. (a).)
On appeal, M.B. contends there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation of rape. For the reasons explained below, we find no merit to this claim and affirm the dispositional order.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
A. Factual Background 1. Prosecution's Case
The following facts are drawn from Jane Doe's testimony at the contested jurisdictional hearing.
In 2018, towards the beginning of her freshman year in high school, Jane Doe was introduced to M.B., a high school junior, through mutual friends. Jane stated that while they started out as friends, M.B. was immediately flirtatious towards her despite knowing that she had a boyfriend at the time. Approximately three to four months after meeting M.B., and after breaking up with her former boyfriend, Jane entered into a romantic relationship with M.B.
Jane testified that she and M.B. only spent time together during school, where they would meet up with their group of friends during lunch and breaks between classes to smoke marijuana. Their usual meeting spot was in the parking lot behind some storage crates, as the area was hidden and allowed them to conceal themselves from others. Jane indicated that M.B. was usually the person to supply the group with marijuana through the use of a vape pen and cartridges. Jane also stated that she had never smoked marijuana with M.B. using a pipe with an attached bowl.
Jane testified that in May 2019, M.B. texted her to meet him by the storage crates during the lunch hour. When she arrived, M.B. was the only other person there and was holding a filled "bowl" of what she recognized as marijuana. M.B. asked her to sit down, handed her the bowl, and lit it for her to smoke. Jane stated that after three to four hits from the bowl, she started to feel very sick, nauseous, and dizzy, and her vision began to blur. As Jane had never experienced these symptoms previously from smoking marijuana, she handed the bowl back to M.B. and told him she did not want any more. She then observed M.B. dump out the contents of the bowl without consuming anything, even though it appeared to her that the bowl had been freshly packed.
After she gave M.B. back the bowl, Jane started experiencing blackouts, where she would blackout for a few seconds then "come back to." During this time, she eventually realized she had gone from sitting down on the chair to bending over and gripping the back of the chair, but did not remember when she stood up or how she got to this position. She then felt her pants and underwear being lowered and felt someone, who she assumed was M.B., put his penis inside her vagina. Jane indicated that the encounter lasted approximately 15 to 20 minutes, after which she observed M.B. walking away from the crates.
Although Jane could not see M.B. at the time, she testified that no one was there besides him.
Jane testified that after she pulled up her underwear and pants and started walking to class, she still felt nauseous and dizzy and continued to have periods of blackouts. Before going to class, she went to the bathroom to clean herself because she felt "wet and sticky," and observed she was bleeding and in pain. Jane also observed another substance but was not sure what it was at the time and only later came to know that it was semen. Jane confirmed that prior to this incident, she had been a virgin and had never had sexual intercourse previously.
Jane stated that after the incident, she did not report anything to the principal, the school resource officer, or discuss the incident with her friends or family members. Jane said that she felt ashamed, afraid, and did not want to believe this had happened to her. She also did not confront M.B. or speak with him about what happened and continued to meet him and their group of friends regularly, but stopped smoking marijuana with him. M.B. did not acknowledge the incident or apologize to her about what he had done.
Jane testified that M.B. had previously asked her to have sex with him on a number of occasions, but she had repeatedly "shut it down" because she was not comfortable with the idea. Jane felt that M.B. pressured her to have sex by repeatedly asking her about it, even after she refused, and continuing to make insinuations until she got very upset.
In July 2019, Jane and M.B. ended their relationship. However, Jane still did not discuss the incident with M.B., her family, or any of her friends, and she continued to feel ashamed about what had happened. Jane resumed her relationship with M.B. in the fall and began smoking marijuana with him again, but broke up with him in March 2020 after learning that he had another girlfriend named J.
In September 2021, during her yearly physical check-up, Jane asked her doctor for bloodwork to check if she had any sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). When her doctor asked if she was sexually active, Jane told her doctor about the incident and said she had been raped. Her doctor informed her that she would have to report the incident to a social worker, as she was a mandated reporter. The following day, Jane was contacted by the social worker and also gave a statement to a police officer regarding the incident.
Jane later published a YouTube video discussing the rape. In addition, J., M.B.'s former girlfriend, created an Instagram account titled "Exposing [M.B.]," which Jane indicated had been created for victims to have a "voice" about the things he had done to them. While Jane did not participate in creating this account, she shared her story with J. to post on the account.
2. Defense's Case
The defense presented testimony from San Jose Police Officer Jesse Hernandez, who interviewed Jane after she disclosed the incident to her doctor. Hernandez confirmed that he had been dispatched to Jane's home address on September 22, 2021, to investigate a possible sexual assault. Hernandez videotaped the interview using his body-worn camera, and the footage was played for the trial court during his testimony. In the video, Jane stated that the incident happened in 2019 on school property in the area behind the storage crates. Jane indicated that she and M.B. were alone in the area, and he had given her a bowl of "weed" to smoke, which he dumped out without smoking it himself. Jane noted that after smoking the weed, things became "fuzzy" and she did not remember much apart from being bent over the chair with M.B. standing behind her, feeling pain in her vagina, and blacking out. Jane further stated that during the incident, she said "Stop, [M.B.], stop" and attempted to turn around, but M.B. pushed her head forward. Jane indicated she believed M.B. had intercourse with her after feeling wet and sticky and discovering she was bleeding.
Jane also stated she believed M.B. may have "put something" in the weed, as she had never blacked out in the past from smoking. Jane noted that M.B. had been very "touchy feely" with her in the past, but she had always pushed him away without incident.
B. Procedural History
On December 2, 2021, the Santa Clara County District Attorney's office filed a wardship petition against M.B. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a). The petition alleged that M.B. had committed the crime of rape by an intoxicating, anesthetic, or controlled substance, in violation of section 261, subdivision (a)(3).
On July 11, 2022 and July 19, 2022, the juvenile court held a contested jurisdictional hearing in M.B.'s case, where it heard testimony from Jane and Hernandez.
After taking the matter under submission, the juvenile court issued a written statement of decision sustaining the allegation on August 19, 2022. In its decision, the court noted that the entire case rested on the credibility of Jane's testimony. The court concluded that it found Jane to be a credible witness and believed her statement that she did not report the incident at the time it happened because she was embarrassed, ashamed and in denial. The court also noted that the incident only came to light because Jane asked her doctor for an STD test, and there was no evidence that Jane knew her doctor was a mandated reporter. While the court cited some inconsistencies between Jane's recorded statement to Hernandez and her testimony in court, the court nevertheless found that these inconsistencies did not contradict the key points in her story. Specifically, the court indicated that Jane's story remained the same as follows: (1) she believed she was in a relationship with M.B.; (2) they had smoked marijuana by the crates many times before; (3) on this occasion, M.B. gave her a bowl for the first and only time and did not consume from it himself; (4) she immediately felt woozy, dizzy, and nauseous; (5) she went in and out of consciousness; (6) she felt herself being bent over the chair; (7) she felt M.B.'s penis entering her vagina; and (8) she was a virgin and did not consent to sex, and had told Hernandez she said "Stop, [M.B.], stop."
The juvenile court found that under these circumstances, M.B. should have known her condition and that she was unable to give consent. The court pointed out that he was a junior while she was a freshman, and he had provided her with whatever was in the bowl. The court further noted that Jane being dizzy, nauseous and "in and out of consciousness" should have been apparent to any high school junior. The court specifically pointed to the fact that Jane blacked out, which was "definitely different" from Jane and M.B.'s everyday experiences with smoking together, and found that this alone should have alerted M.B. that Jane was in no condition to have intercourse.
At a dispositional hearing on September 2, 2022, the juvenile court declared M.B. a ward of the court and placed him on probation.
Appellant filed a motion to augment (MOA) on January 19, 2023, requesting that the following documents be added to the record on appeal: (1) the minute order from a review hearing on December 23, 2022 where the court sealed the juvenile record and ordered the petition and probation dismissed as M.B. was almost 21; and (2) the formal order filed on December 23, 2022 dismissing and sealing the juvenile record. This court deemed the MOA to be a request for judicial notice and deferred the request for consideration with the appeal. Having considered the documents, we deny the request as irrelevant to our resolution of the issue on appeal.
M.B. timely appealed.
II. Discussion
M.B. contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the allegation of rape of an intoxicated person because there was no evidence supporting that he knew or should have known the extent of Jane Doe's intoxication. For the reasons explained below, we find that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation.
A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review
Appellate review of sufficiency of evidence for a juvenile wardship is the same as it is for an adult conviction. (In re Roderick P. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 801, 809.) In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, we "review 'the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment' and decide 'whether it discloses substantial evidence . . . such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.' [Citation.] Under this standard, the court does not' "ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." [Citation.] Instead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'" (People v. Hatch (2000) 22 Cal.4th 260, 272.)
In making this determination, we do not reweigh the evidence, resolve conflicts in the evidence, or reevaluate the credibility of witnesses. Instead, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment, draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence that support it, and presume the existence of every fact the trier of fact could reasonably deduce from the evidence. (See Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319-320; People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578.)
Section 261, subdivision (a) provides that "[r]ape is an act of sexual intercourse" accomplished under certain circumstances, including "[i]f a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or a controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused." (§ 261, subd. (a)(3).) The issue of whether a defendant reasonably should have known whether a given victim was too intoxicated to resist an act of sexual intercourse is a factual one to be resolved by the trier of fact. (See People v. Linwood (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 59, 68 [referring to the average juror's ability to resolve this issue].) If a reasonable person in like circumstances would have known of the victim's condition, then the defendant is presumed to have had such awareness. (Id. at pp. 71-72.)
B. Substantial Evidence Supported the Juvenile Court's Conclusion that M.B. Knew or Should Have Reasonably Known that Jane Was Too Intoxicated to Consent to Intercourse
In his argument, M.B. does not dispute the accuracy of Jane's testimony or that the incident took place. Instead, he contends that while Jane described how she felt after consuming the bowl, there was no evidence regarding her outward appearance. M.B. argues that absent such evidence, the juvenile court erred in concluding that he should have reasonably known Jane was too intoxicated to consent to sexual intercourse.
In reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, we find there was substantial evidence for the juvenile court to reasonably conclude that M.B. knew or should have known Jane was too intoxicated to consent. Jane testified that she and M.B. had consumed marijuana regularly many times in the past and that she had never smoked from a bowl or experienced similar symptoms previously. Jane also testified that she was dizzy, nauseous, and experiencing blackout periods on and off to the point that she was unaware of how she went from sitting down to bending over the chair. Jane further testified that M.B. was the only person present at the time and did not leave until after the incident was over. Accordingly, the juvenile court reasonably concluded that M.B. observed Jane reacting to the marijuana in a different manner than normal, namely, by becoming dizzy, nauseous, and blacking out and should have known she was too intoxicated to consent.
The Attorney General also argues that the juvenile court could reasonably conclude that something other than marijuana was in the pipe bowl and M.B. knew such a substance would cause Jane to become intoxicated to the degree she described. We need not reach that same conclusion because at a minimum, there was substantial evidence demonstrating that once Jane was provided with the substance in the pipe bowl, M.B. was aware that the effect was different than prior occasions. As noted in the court's decision, Jane consistently stated that this was the first and only time M.B. gave her a bowl, which he himself did not use and dumped out. Jane additionally stated that she had repeatedly refused M.B.'s requests to have sex and told the police that she told M.B. to stop during the incident itself. Given these prior refusals, her request for him to stop on that day, Jane's testimony that M.B. pulled down her underwear and pants, along with multiple signs of intoxication described by Jane, there was substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's conclusion that M.B. either knew or should have known Jane was too intoxicated to consent.
III. Disposition
The juvenile court's dispositional order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, ACTING P.J., BROMBERG, J.