People v. Hendrix
| Citation | 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 922,8 Cal.App.4th 1458 |
| Decision Date | 20 August 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. D015106,D015106 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Henry Lee HENDRIX, Defendant and Appellant. |
Daniel E. Lungren, Atty. Gen., George Williamson, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Gary W. Schons, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Janelle B. Davis, Supervising Deputy Atty. Gen., and David I. Friedenberg, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
A jury found the defendant, Henry Lee Hendrix, guilty of simple assault (PEN.CODE, § 240)1, a lesser included offense of assault with intent to commit rape (§ 220), and felony false imprisonment by violence (§§ 236/237). The court found Hendrix had been convicted of two serious felonies within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a) and sentenced him to the lower term of sixteen months for his conviction of false imprisonment with a one-year consecutive term for each prison prior, for a total of three years and four months. The court stayed its six-month sentence on the simple assault conviction pursuant to section 654. We conclude that Hendrix's contention that his conviction of felony false imprisonment must be reversed because the trial court erred in failing to give a requested instruction on the lesser included offense of misdemeanor false imprisonment has merit. We therefore reverse the judgment on that count. 2 In all other respects we affirm the judgment. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
At approximately 8:30 to 9 p.m. 23-year-old Bethany M. was walking to a friend's house when she saw Hendrix standing in the driveway in front of his house. She knew Hendrix, having seen him around the neighborhood for about six years. Hendrix was about 29 years old. Bethany did not have a dating relationship with him.
Bethany asked Hendrix if she could use the bathroom in his house. Hendrix invited her in and they walked upstairs together. After using the bathroom Bethany saw Hendrix sitting on the edge of his bed playing Nintendo. Hendrix asked her if she wanted to play. She sat down on the bed and joined him in playing the game.
Fifteen to twenty minutes later Hendrix said he did not want his nieces or nephews bothering him and closed the bedroom door. The door's lock was broken and to secure the door Hendrix pushed a couch against it. Hendrix asked Bethany if she wanted to smoke a "joint". She replied she did and Hendrix rolled a joint for her. She smoked most of it.
After a period of about 45 minutes or so, Bethany got up and said she had to leave. As she started toward the door, the light was turned off and Hendrix grabbed her from behind. Hendrix's hand was on the front of her neck. He pushed her on to the bed and started to choke her. He said she was not going to leave after smoking his marijuana. Hendrix's upper body pinned her down. He used his knee in an effort to force her legs apart.
Bethany heard someone coming up the stairs and screamed for help. The person outside yelled at Hendrix to open the door. Bethany ran toward the door which was pushed open by Hendrix's sister. Bethany told her Hendrix had tried to rape her. Bethany also told her aunt about the incident and then reported it to the police. Although Bethany did not see a doctor she suffered a sore throat from the attack and had some scratches on her neck.
Dr. Russell Bruce Hubbard, a psychiatrist with expertise on the effects of drugs, testified for the defense. He explained marijuana could produce anxiety attacks or paranoid episodes as well as producing perceptual distortions and visual hallucinations. Use of marijuana could also adversely affect long term memory by interfering with the transfer of information from short term to long term memory. Given a hypothetical situation similar to the defense theory of what occurred in the bedroom, Dr. Hubbard testified it was possible the marijuana Bethany smoked could have affected her memory of the incident and could have led to panic or a paranoid episode.
The door to Hendrix's bedroom could be pushed partially open from the outside when the couch was pushed against it. Although it could not be completely opened it could be opened enough so that someone could get through the door.
Cleo Rambus testified he was at Hendrix's house between 8:30 and 10 p.m. Hendrix came out of the house and asked him if he could give a lady a ride home. Rambus said he could not do so. Hendrix returned home. A few minutes later a woman came out of the house. Rambus did not notice anything unusual about her.
On rebuttal Officer Jeanmarie Frary testified she interviewed Bethany at approximately 10:35 p.m. on the date the incident occurred. Officer Frary had training and experience in recognizing people under the influence of drugs or alcohol. She was also familiar with the symptoms of persons under the influence of marijuana. When she spoke with Bethany, Bethany displayed no symptoms of recent alcohol or marijuana consumption.
Hendrix argues the court committed reversible error when it rejected defense counsel's request to give an instruction on misdemeanor false imprisonment, a lesser included offense of felony false imprisonment.
Section 236 defines false imprisonment as "the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another." Section 237 provides that punishment for false imprisonment may either be a fine not exceeding $1,000 or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year or both, except where "such false imprisonment [is] effected by violence, menace, fraud, or deceit...." In such circumstances, false imprisonment is a felony and is "punishable by imprisonment in the state prison." (§ 237.)
Here, the court instructed solely on false imprisonment by violence or menace pursuant to CALJIC No. 9.60:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Garcia
...section 262(b) nor do they concern evidence of other acts of domestic violence. Defendant cites two other cases, People v. Hendrix (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1458, 10 Cal. Rptr.2d 922 and People v. Hayes (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1238, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 105, in which the reviewing courts reversed convicti......
-
People v. Newman
...crime to a felony, the force used must be “greater than that reasonably necessary to effect the restraint.” (People v. Hendrix (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1458, 1462, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 922.)Section 237 lists “violence” and “menace” as two of the four methods of force that may elevate misdemeanor fals......
-
People v. Karavolos
...such circumstances the force is defined as 'violence' with the false imprisonment effected by such violence a felony. (People v. Hendrix (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1458, 1462 .)' (People v. Castro (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 137, 140 .) False imprisonment does not require 'confinement in some type of ......
-
People v. Williams
...in the statute simply means the use of force that is "greater than that reasonably necessary to effect the restraint." (People v. Hendrix (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1458, 1462.) For example, in People v. Aispuro (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1509 (Aispuro), the defendant stopped two young sisters (ages ......