Legal Opinion

People v. Dominguez

California Supreme Court

Decided August 28, 2006No. S130860PublishedCited by 73 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

WERDEGAR, J.

We address in this case three separate claims of error. First, we consider whether the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury, sua sponte, that a reasonable yet mistaken belief the victim consented to have sexual intercourse was a defense to a charge of rape. (People v. Mayberry (1975) 15 Cal.3d 143 [125 Cal.Rptr. 745, 542 P.2d 1337].) Because defendant did not request such an instruction, rely on that defense, or present substantial evidence to support the defense, no duty to instruct arose and the Court of Appeal correctly so ruled.

*1145Second, we revisit an…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. People v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  3. People v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
  4. People v. GreenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
  5. People v. MauryCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by73 opinions

  1. People v. BrooksCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
  2. People v. VinesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
  3. People v. RomeroCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
  4. People v. RobertsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  5. State v. HacheneyWashington Supreme Court · 2007

68 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API