Delia S. v. Torres
| Decision Date | 30 July 1982 |
| Citation | 134 Cal.App.3d 471,184 Cal.Rptr. 787 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | DELIA S. and George S., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Billy TORRES, Defendant and Appellant. Norma L. TORRES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DELIA S. and George S., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 63920. |
Irachmil B. Taus II, Beverly Hills, and Nathan Misraje, Encino, for plaintiffs/defendants and respondents.
Defendant, Dr. Billy Torres, appeals from a judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs, Delia S. and George S., after a jury trial. On plaintiffs' complaint, the jury returned a verdict that Billy Torres committed a battery, in the form of a rape, against Delia S.; Billy Torres intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Delia S. and George S.; and George S. suffered a loss of consortium as a result of the acts of Billy Torres. On defendant's cross-complaint, the jury returned a verdict that Delia S. did not slander Billy Torres.
In a related action, consolidated for trial, plaintiff, Norma Torres, appeals from a judgment entered against defendant, Delia S., after the jury returned a verdict that Delia S. committed a battery against Norma Torres, but awarded no damages.
Delia S. and George S. were married in the Philippines, after which they immigrated to the United States. In 1975, they met Billy Torres and Norma Torres, both dentists, through the Bicolano Association, a Filipino social group; Norma Torres treated the S. children. Thereafter, the Torres and S. families became close friends, seeing each other socially on many occasions.
On February 24, 1977, Billy Torres volunteered to drive George S. to Norton Air Force Base, where George S. planned to fly to the Philippines for a visit. Delia S. and one George Pandez (Pandez) accompanied them. They arrived at Norton Air Force Base at 7:00 p. m. and departed, leaving George S. behind, approximately one-half hour later; Billy Torres was driving, with Pandez sharing the front seat and Delia S. occupying the rear seat behind the driver. Pandez's destination was closer than the S. residence, so Billy Torres first dropped him off at approximately 9:15 p. m. At this point, Billy Torres asked Delia S. to join him in the front seat, but she declined.
Billy Torres continued on, then parked his automobile between two large buildings. When Delia S. inquired why he was stopping there, she received no response. Instead, Billy Torres turned off the motor, entered the back seat, and pushed her down. When Delia S. asked what was wrong with him, he took an eight-inch knife from his pocket and placed it at her throat. She attempted to climb out of the automobile, but he pulled her down onto the seat and said, "Give me what I want and then I won't kill you." Billy Torres then began to pull down her underwear; she resisted these efforts, but he accomplished the task with one hand, using the other to hold the knife at her throat. While continuing to hold the knife at her throat, Billy Torres had sexual intercourse with her. After he finished, he warned her not to tell anyone or he would kill her; he then drove her to her home. Delia S.'s daughter admitted her to the house and asked whether she had been crying; she did not answer, but hurried upstairs.
Delia S. told no one of the rape for some time because she was ashamed, humiliated and frightened. In addition, she knew her husband had high blood pressure and feared the effect on him. Hence, when he returned from the Philippines on March 24, 1977, she told him she was pregnant, but kept silent about the rape although she was doubtful that her husband was the father of the expected child.
The evening of George S.'s return, Billy and Norma Torres telephoned him to complaint about an anonymous letter they had received; in response, the S.'s went to the Torres' dental office, where Delia S. had a heated exchange with Billy Torres. Subsequently, Billy Torres spoke to George S. privately. When the S.'s returned home, George asked Delia what she wanted to tell him; she was evasive, mentioning her concern that she was being accused of writing the letters and avoiding mention of the rape.
On April 13, 1977, Billy Torres requested a private meeting with George S., at which time he told George that Delia S. needed psychiatric care. When her husband related this to her, she finally told him of the rape.
Some time prior to April 18, George S. accused Billy Torres of the rape and threatened to go to the police; he did not do so at the time because Billy Torres begged him not to. Thereafter, on April 18, Billy Torres requested a meeting, to include other members of the Filipino community, in order to resolve the matter. At the meeting, George S. leveled the accusation of rape and Delia S. recounted the circumstances of the rape. Billy Torres confessed to the rape after which a Mr. Garrovillo stated to George S. that Billy Torres was asking forgiveness and he should give it. Delia S. then related that she was pregnant as a result of the rape and needed an abortion, for which Billy Torres should pay. He said that he would do so and Norma Torres agreed. However, the Torreses ultimately balked and never paid for the abortion, which was performed on April 23.
Sometime thereafter, the S.'s consulted an attorney and Delia S. reported the rape to the authorities.
Billy Torres testified that he began an affair with Delia S. late in 1976. They had sexual intercourse on several occasions, utilizing his automobile. On February 24, 1977, after dropping off Pandez on the way back from Norton Air Force Base, he and Delia S. located a place to park. They remained in the front seat and had sexual intercourse, to which Delia S. consented. When he drove her home, she was not upset or crying.
When George S. accused Billy Torres of rape, Torres requested the meeting to obtain the advice and opinions of his friends. He admitted the intercourse, but not the rape. He agreed to pay for the abortion because he felt some responsibility due to the affair. However, the parties subsequently had a falling out over a refusal to pay Delia S. directly, rather than the hospital.
Billy Torres contends that the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting expert testimony concerning the reactions of rape victims and the motives and characteristics of rapists.
Billy Torres asserts that the instructions given the jury with respect to battery and consent were prejudicial in that they erroneously permitted the jury to find an injury in the absence of rape.
Billy Torres avers further that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of Delia S.'s sexual conduct with men other than defendant.
Billy Torres also contends that the award of compensatory damages for battery and an additional amount for intentional inflictions of emotional distress constitutes an impermissible double recovery.
Billy Torres avers that the trial court's instruction defining the intentional infliction of emotional distress erroneously allowed the jury to award George S. damages for consensual sexual intercourse and for a wrong committed on another.
Finally, Billy Torres asserts that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the issue of loss of consortium.
Norma Torres contends that the jury's failure to award damages to her constitutes reversible error.
We cannot agree with the contention that the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting expert testimony concerning the reactions of rape victims and the characteristics and motivations of rapists. Expert testimony properly may be offered on a subject which is relevant to an issue tried and beyond common knowledge. (Evid.Code, § 801.) The reactions of rape victims and the varying motivations and personality characteristics of rapists, while perhaps subjects on which we commonly hold opinions, albeit ones that may be grossly erroneous, are not subjects within the common knowledge of jurors; hence, where relevant, expert testimony is appropriate.
Although defendant inferentially challenges Barrie Levy's status as an expert, her qualifications are clear. (Evid.Code, § 720.) She is a licensed clinical social worker with a master's degree in social work and considerable experience in working with rape crisis centers. In addition, Ms. Levy is familiar with detailed studies of rapists and with numerous victim histories.
The focus of defendant's challenge begins with the relevance of evidence of rape victims' reactions. He characterizes Ms. Levy's testimony as improperly "validating" and "explaining" the testimony of Delia S. In so doing, he overlooks a central point: The penultimate issue herein was one of witness credibility. The defense was predicated in part on the theory that the actions and responses of Delia S. were "inconsistent" with those of a rape victim; indeed, that is the position maintained on appeal. The defense reliance on the purported inconsistencies indicates the substantial need for expert guidance on the subject, thus rendering Ms. Levy's testimony highly relevant. That testimony indicated that feelings of fear, shame and guilt, resulting in a failure to speak of or report the experience, are very common reactions for rape victims. Rather than "validating" Delia S.'s testimony, this evidence provided a background against which the jury could assess the relevance of the defense theory that her conduct was not that which was typical or expected of a rape victim. Ms. Levy expressed no opinion that Delia S. was in fact psychologically motivated to behave in a certain manner; she simply provided general information, based on her experience, of common rape victim reactions.
The more important element of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coon v. Joseph
...39 Cal.3d at p. 165, fn. 5, 216 Cal.Rptr. 661, 703 P.2d 1, citing Prosser & Keeton on Torts (5th ed. 1984).) Delia S. v. Torres (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 471, 184 Cal.Rptr. 787 constitutes one such rare exception. There, the court permitted recovery by the husband of a rape victim against the r......
-
Ledger v. Tippitt
...N.E.2d 563, 564; Fowlie v. First Minneapolis Trust Co. (1931) 184 Minn. 82, 237 N.W. 846, 78 A.L.R. 589.6 In Delia S. v. Torres (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 471, 484, 184 Cal.Rptr. 787, the court said: "One may reasonably infer that the violation and rape of one's wife, particularly by a friend, w......
-
Divino Plastic Surgery, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty.
...Girard Orthopaedic Surgeons Medical Group, Inc. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1266-1267, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 855 ; Delia S. v. Torres (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 471, 480, 184 Cal.Rptr. 787 ) are unhelpful because they have nothing to do with section 425.13. Cases holding a physician owes a fiduciary ......
-
People v. McAlpin
...to prove that the complaining witness has in fact been raped. But we recognized, as other courts had held (Delia S. v. Torres (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 471, 478-480, 184 Cal.Rptr. 787), that such testimony is admissible to rehabilitate the complaining witness when the defendant impeaches her cr......
-
Submission to jury and deliberations
...determination that the injury was trivial or insubstantial, a jury verdict awarding no damages is justified. Delia S. v. Torres (1982) 134 Cal. App. 3d 471, 485, 184 Cal. Rptr. 787. Similarly, if the jury awards damages for medical expenses, but no general damages for pain and suffering, th......
-
Table of cases
...290 Cal. Rptr. 3d 189, §22:50 Delgado, People v. (2010) 181 Cal. App. 4th 839, 104 Cal. Rptr. 3d 495, §3:110 Delia S. v. Torres (1982) 134 Cal. App. 3d 471, 184 Cal. Rptr. 787, §22:230 DelRio, People v. (2020) 54 Cal. App. 5th 47, 268 Cal. Rptr. 3d 402, §11:10 DeLuca v. State Fish Co. (2013......