 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Hundal9/6/2002
Appellant was convicted of rape, spousal abuse, forcible sodomy and attempted rape of his wife, as well as telephone line destruction. The charges arose from two separate incidents approximately one week apart. Appellant claimed he never raped his wife and did not significantly restrain her.
Appellant claims the prosecutor's questioning and argument violated his constitutional rights by implying appellant's cultural background indicated his guilt. He also argues that the instruction defining consent unconstitutionally relieved the prosecution from proving an element of the crimes of rape and forcible sodomy. He further argues punishment for attempted rape, false imprisonment, and telephone line destruction violates the proscription against multiple punishment for the same set of facts.
We find the inquiry regarding appellant's cultural background and beliefs was relevant. To the extent that any such argument was improper, we find it did not prejudice his case. Further, the instruction defining consent was proper. Finally, the court's sentence was supported by evidence that the false imprisonment and telephone line destruction were legally separate from the attempted rape. Thus, we will affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant was charged with rape (Pen. Code, § 262, subd. (a)(1)), forcible sodomy (§ 286, subd. (c)(2)), and spousal abuse (§ 273.5) of the victim for acts alleged to have occurred on July 3, 2000; and attempted rape (§§ 664 and 262, subd. (a)), and false imprisonment (§ 236) of her and telephone line destruction (§ 591) for acts alleged to have occurred on July 10, 2000. He pleaded not guilty to the charges. A jury found appellant guilty as charged of all counts, except for finding him guilty of the lesser included offense of misdemeanor false imprisonment. He was sentenced to a total term of 15 years in prison.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Appellant married the victim pursuant to an arrangement by their parents. After their marriage appellant did not permit his wife to be involved in the family finances. Sexual relations were consensual " ost of the time" at the beginning of their marriage. Their marital relations changed, however, when the victim was four months pregnant with their first child. Appellant became verbally abusive and frequently forced the victim to have sex despite her objections. She separated from appellant on a few occasions, moving back into her parents' home. When she moved back in with him, however, appellant continued his violent behavior. He pushed, wrestled, threw, and strangled her in order to have sex, ignoring her pleas to stop. Appellant was most often violent when he had been drinking.
On the evening of July 3, 2000, appellant drank before he and the victim went to bed. Once in bed, appellant removed his underwear and cuddled up to the victim. She told appellant she did not want to have sex. Appellant pinned the victim to the bed and removed her sweat pants and underpants. The victim continued to object to appellant's actions. At times, appellant held a pillow over her face or covered her mouth with his hand. Appellant turned the victim onto her stomach, twisted her arm so that she could not move, and inserted his penis into her anus. She told appellant that this was painful and told him to stop, but he ignored her. The couple's two-year-old daughter entered the room during this intercourse. Appellant continued and eventually ejaculated on the victim's buttocks.
Appellant left the room and returned shortly thereafter with a can of beer. The victim held her child while appellant was gone. When appellant returned, he quickly grabbed the victim's ankles and began to have
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 California Classifieds
Classified Postings
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|