People v. Benavidez
| Decision Date | 31 October 1967 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 13286 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Miguel BENAVIDEZ, Defendant and Appellant. |
Clarence E. Blair, Compton, for appellant.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Edward A. Hinz, Jr., and Marjory E. Winston, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of forcible rape in violation of section 261, subdivision 3, of the Penal Code.
In an information filed in Los Angeles on June 29, 1966, defendant was charged with raping Caroline Maiden on May 21, 1966, by force and violence. Defendant pleaded not guilty. A jury trial was waived and it was stipulated that the cause be submitted on the testimony in the transcript of the proceedings had at the preliminary hearing, with each side reserving the right to offer added evidence. Defendant testified and called one other witness, a taxicab driver. At the time of taking oral testimony, all witnesses were excluded from the courtroom until called to testify. Defendant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to the state prison, the term to run consecutively to any other sentence being served.
A re sume of some of the facts is as follows: At or about 1:45 a.m. on May 21, 1966, Caroline Maiden started walking from her house to a neighborhood liquor store, which was three or four houses beyond hers, with the intention of purchasing some milk and a can of beer. She stopped at the corner for a street traffic signal and defendant drove up in his car, opened the door and called out to her. Defendant mentioned something about an address and Mrs. Maiden stepped toward the car in order to understand better what defendant was talking about. Defendant asked Mrs. Maiden if she wanted a ride and she responded in the negative. Defendant grabbed her arm, twisted it and pulled her part way into the car; he drove away with the door open and with Mrs. Maiden's feet hanging out. Later she was seated in the car and defendant told her he had a knife and a gun and that if she did not do as he directed, he might have to use them. She attempted to convince defendant to take her to the store where she originally had intended to go or to her home where she was living with her six children and a grandmother. She attempted to jump out of the car on two or three occasions. Later defendant drove to a darkened area where there were no houses close by. Defendant then told Mrs. Maiden that they were going to engage in sexual intercourse and directed her to disrobe. She stated that she did not desire to take her clothes off. Defendant started to rip or forcibly take off her dress. He put his hands around her throat and said that he would hurt her 'if I didn't go along with him.' She made no agreement with defendant to have an act of sexual intercourse; however, she thought 'he was really going to take me out there to kill me, so at that time I didn't feel I had much choice.' Defendant did direct her to lie down on the seat of the car and did have an act of sexual intercourse with her. She made an effort to get up two or three times but defendant pushed her down and told her to stay down.
Defendant then drove to a gasoline service station where Mrs. Maiden hailed a taxicab, got in and advised the driver, 'Please let's get out of here fast, hurry.' The driver of the cab stated that she appeared very excited, kept looking to the rear and asked him to hurry. The cab driver, called as a witness by defendant, stated that he picked up Mrs. Maiden as a fare sometime between 2:30 and 3:30 a.m. on the date in question.
Mrs. Maiden did not report the rape for a few days out of consideration for her six children and her ailing grandmother.
The defendant testified that on the way home from work about 7:30 p.m. he met Mrs. Maiden at a hamburger stand; that he paid her to have an act of intercourse with him and he was home by about 9:30 or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Carreon
...604, 606, 13 Cal.Rptr. 466; and People v. Hernandez (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 398, 400, 309 P.2d 969; see also People v. Benavidez (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 563, 566, 63 Cal.Rptr. 357.) Nothing in the new constitutional provision changes this well established requirement of a finding of necessity b......
-
State v. Rusk
...v. State, 64 Wis.2d 590, 219 N.W.2d 592 (1974). Indeed, conduct, rather than words, may convey the threat. See People v. Benavidez, 63 Cal.Rptr. 357, 255 Cal.App.2d 563 (1967); State v. Douglas, 256 La. 572, 237 So.2d 382, death sentence vacated, 408 U.S. 937, 92 S.Ct. 2864, 33 L.Ed.2d 756 ......
-
People v. McGill
...v. State, 64 Wis.2d 590, 219 N.W.2d 592 (1974). Indeed, conduct, rather than words, may convey the threat. See People v. Benavidez, 255 Cal.App.2d 563, 63 Cal.Rptr. 357 (1967); State v. Douglas, 256 La. 572, 237 So.2d 382, death sentence vacated, 408 U.S. 937, 92 S.Ct. 2864, 33 L.Ed.2d 756 ......
-
People v. Benitez, A118252 (Cal. App. 12/30/2008), A118252
...his responses to questions were intelligent and had the [jury] believed him he would have been found not guilty." (People v. Benavidez (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 563, 566.) To put it otherwise, "[T]he evidence was overwhelming that [defendant] understood English." (In re Raymundo B., supra, 203 ......