ÿWPCç6 ZHíeef"Ñï=–êzÈ. FíeefÆVþ¥{_8P ×Ê"Ñï=ÕýÙÍ}™¿WsÀè/ `¾fœã¹…ò¡MV„FÙ˜ÀàͼözLéçn¢¼³Yš…{òZº´Ì¦9=ƒ_µ"qp‘Ú%³QÑ“k"â*£ë}Y%·Ð{Û¿0oK¼ÍE ÖœbúçÄŸ›û3i×î™æ`ÃúF¿qqѺïÒÀkµŽ ¢ŠNž¢í[h!r„)1#ΆT)/Ô8‚hò]Òˆø×N¶´ˆ‡­oiáâÏ}£ Èòû?rE\M~mïÀ4¦Ö‘Э]rBúˆßRÙWC’AÚÝ8¯wlR™îÖZšé¢ÿËû©2Gö¹PuYÖq E[ÄšýÎéûV¹wfƒ«MWúL྘Mà“Å*­¦«ÏÌùÎ_+¦2ýÂHž½(`-ʰ¥ŒEüÒûò²WáiŒS ‡ ]ìr‡Ð#‚ÎÛ¤›6iQV×Ç"êÀ†³ Tì}3Û ± ìl›£Nz¥Þ@ÐBúˆãñG>„S:¾’Åm ¼šô{ dð±"{L˜pjné"62>÷ôAìÓh†ñ›+?-‚?*uŠWŽot+ü‡qŽR EáU¿¾—ú€=ÔVÑZ#!ìUN  %[ 0·aUƒN ^ f w@r 4² Æ Õ m× Mî Fò 8 UoNÇô 0û  0D H­N¶ûr±÷#Yks!s!s!ÕÞ"M³&M·&M»&ÿ&`‚(‚(Ãâ) 0N¥+®ó+á,¡,Íd-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-È1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.~ù/Mw3ë{3df5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5 BÊ6˜HP LaserJet 5Si,ä,,,,,ä0(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX(uÙ$¡¡ÑTRXä3Ø' LetterXä3Ø' Letter3Ø' Letter3Ø' LetterTÑÑ  ÑÑÑÔ€X0oXXXÔ(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman Regular:œ8/ä ¸*U¹*Uº*U»*U¼*U½*U¾*U¿*UÀ*UÁ*Uvî.‡q“&rtyBarı‚3|xÁ*$ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ <Ý ƒM$ÝÔ€X¾ïXXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔòòPeopleóó€v.€òòSedenoóó€(1974)€10€Cal.3d€704,€Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïs#Ô720„721;òò€Peopleóó€v.€òòWatsonóó€(1956)€46€Cal.2dÐ ° Ð818,€826. …Ý ƒM$ÝÔ€X¾ïXXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€This€is€a€dubious€conclusion.€€The€California€Supreme€Court€has€made€it€clear€that€forÐ ° Ðthe€doctrine€of€invited€error€to€apply,€ð ðit€must€be€clear€from€the€record€that€defense€counsel€madeÏan€express€objection€to€the€relevant€instructions€.€.€.ðð,€and€ð ðit€must€also€be€clear€that€counsel€actedÏfor€tactical€reasons€and€not€out€of€ignorance€or€mistake.ððÌ(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòBunyardóó€(1988)€45€Cal.3d€1189,€1234;€accord,€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòDuncanóó€(1991)€53€Cal.3dÐ pÀ Ð955,€969„970.))¼^S Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular BruckerBergschneiderKusumotoPitmonInternatBallantineDieckmann CejaTowlerincludedsWolcottMaganaCarapeliStansburyAvinaBarrazaLemusElizeRisleyCondeMcMillanSchadGiardinoMayfieldLomeliKendrickRubalcadoBledsoeHouseleyRelifordMcLeodl]ogicallykn[ewnonpub.htmMcPetersStanworth(«(3M$¤¤Ý ƒuÙ!ÝÑTRXà3Ø' LetterXà3Ø' Letter3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑ  ÑÑÑÔ€X¾ïXXXÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóX £Ý ƒM$ÝÔ€X¾ïXXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Although€òòValentineóó€doesnððt€reach€this€question,€there€is€no€conceivable€reason€why€thisÐ ° Ðchange€in€the€meaning€of€ð ðduressðð€should€not€be€held€to€apply€to€other€forcible€sex€crimes,€suchÏas€forcible€lewd€conduct€under€section€288(b),€or€forcible€sodomy€under€section€286. ¬Ý ƒM$ÝÔ€X¾ïXXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€òòChapmanóó€v.€òòCaliforniaóó€(1967)€386€U.S.€18,€24. hÝ ƒM$ÝÔ€X¾ïXXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Although€288(a)€and€(b)€inexplicably€have€the€same€3,€6,€8€sentence€range,€the€forcibleÐ ° Ðcrime€is€subject€to€the€full€term€consecutive€provisions€of€subdivisions€(c)€and€(d)€of€section€667,Ïwhile€the€nonforcible€crime€is€not.€ íÝ ƒM$ÝÔ€X¾ïXXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Presumably,€the€reasoning€of€these€cases€could€apply€to€other€nonforcible€sex€crimesÐ ° Ðinvolving€minors.€€For€example,€digital€penetration€under€section€289,€subdivision€(j),€requiresÏthat€the€defendant€ð ðparticipateðð€in€an€act€of€penetration€of€the€genital€opening€of€a€person€underÏ14,€and€ten€years€younger€than€the€defendant,€by€a€foreign€object,€and€that€such€act€be€done€withÏthe€purpose€and€specific€intent€to€cause€sexual€arousal,€gratification,€or€abuse.€€A€defendant€couldÏbe€charged€with€this€crime€if€he€instigated€such€conduct€by€a€minor€for€his€or€the€victimððs€sexualÏgratification,€abuse,€etc. OÝ ƒM$ÝÔ€X¾ïXXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€FORECITE€also€suggests€a€corollary€argument€for€specific€intent€crimes,€based€on€theÐ ° Ðstate€supreme€courtððs€holding€in€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòMcCoyóó€(2001)€25€Cal.4th€1111,€contending€that€theÐ  ð Ðholding€in€that€case€means€that€where€aiding€and€abetting€is€not€presented€on€a€ð ðnatural€andÏprobable€consequencesðð€theory,€the€government€must€prove€that€an€aider€and€abettor€has€òòbothóó€aÐ €Ð Ðspecific€intent€to€facilitate€the€perpetratorððs€commission€of€the€crime,€òòandóó€that€the€aider€andÐ pÀ Ðabettor€must€also€share€the€perpetratorððs€specific€intent€ð!ð€malice€in€a€murder€case€such€as€òòMcCoyóó,Ð ` ° Ðand,€by€analogy€to€our€framework,€lewd€intent€in€the€case€of€a€specific€intent€sex€crime€such€asÏ288(a)€or€(b).€(See€F€3.01n,€discussing€òòMcCoyóó.)€€However,€òòMcCoyóó€may€be€limited€to€its€unusualÐ @  Ðfacts€(homicide€aider€and€abettor€convicted€of€greater€crime€than€perpetrator),€based€on€settledÏcase€law€holding€that€an€aider€and€abettor€need€have€the€same€specific€intent€as€the€perpetrator,Ïbut€is€rather€said€to€ð ðððshareðð€the€perpetrator's€specific€intent€when€he€or€she€knows€the€full€extentÐ `   Ðof€the€perpetrator's€criminal€purpose€and€gives€aid€or€encour‚age‚ment€with€the€intent€or€purposeÏof€facilitating€the€perpetrator's€commission€of€the€crime.ðð€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòBeemanóó€(1984)€35€Cal.€3dÐ  ð Ð547,€560.) aÝ ƒM$ÝÔ€X¾ïXXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€òòÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔPeopleóó€v.€òòBrevermanóó€(1998)€19€Cal.4th€142Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïw#Ô;€òòÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔPeopleóó€v.€òòBirksóó€(1998)€19€Cal.4th€108Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïð#Ô. ËÝ ƒM$ÝÔ€X¾ïXXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Bear€in€mind,€though€that€the€ð ðpleadingsðð€test€has€been€limited€to€the€accusation€of€theÐ ° Ðsubstantive€crime€itself,€excluding€even€punishment€enhancements,€such€as€personal€use€of€aÏfirearm.€(See€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòWolcottóó€(1983)€34€Cal.3d€92.)€€While€I€entirely€agree€with€the€analysis€ofÐ à ÐChief€Justice€Birdððs€dissent€in€that€case,€which€holds€that€you€should€consider€the€entireÏaccusatory€pleading,€I€am€still€waiting€for€the€first€one€of€her€dissents€to€become€the€law€of€thisÏstate.€€òòóóPerhaps€if€you€are€clever€you€can€fashion€an€argument€to€the€effect€that€òòWolcottóó€is€noÐ ` ° Ðlonger€controlling€because,€under€òòApprendióó,€there€is€no€longer€any€difference€betweenÐ P   Ðsubstantive€crimes€and€enhancements€that€increase€the€maximum€punishment€for€crimes. ¹Ý ƒM$ÝÔ€X¾ïXXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Also,€bear€in€mind€that€forcible€lewd€conduct€(ðð€288(b))€is€not€an€LIO€of€forcible€rape,Ð ° Ðeven€if€the€victimððs€age€is€alleged€in€the€pleadings,€because€the€specific€intent€requirement€in€theÏlesser€crime€is€absent€from€the€greater€crime.€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòStansburyóó€(1993)€4€Cal.4th€1017,€1069.) VÝ ƒM$ÝÔ€X¾ïXXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Of€course,€a€prosecutor€may€choose€to€charge€the€underlying€288(a)s€in€the€alternative,Ð ° Ðwith€the€ð ðeither/orðð€instruction€given€under€CALJIC€No.€17.03,€which€will€obviate€the€need€forÏLIO€instructions. ¹Ý ƒM$ÝÔ€X¾ïXXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Of€course€I€am€not€citing€this€unpublished€opinion€as€authority,€just€to€let€you€knowÐ ° Ðwhat€a€right„thinking€court€we€have€in€the€Sixth€District.€€You€can€find€this€and€all€otherÏunpublished€opinions€on€the€state€court€website,€at€òòhttp://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/Ð à Ðopinions/nonpub.htmóó.(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ ¤Ý ƒM$ÝÔ€X¾ïXXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€I€just€had€to€sneak€in€one€of€my€long€headnotes. ¹Ý ƒM$ÝÔ€X¾ïXXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Statutory€references€are€to€the€Penal€Code€if€not€otherwise€specified. ÃÝ ƒM$ÝÔ€X¾ïXXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€òòFloodóó,€òòsupraóó,€18€Cal.4th€470;€òòNederóó,€òòsupraóó,€527€U.S.€1. ¾Ý ƒM$ÝÔ€X¾ïXXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Bear€in€mind,€though,€that€if€the€case€is€a€One€Strike,€Three€Strike,€or€aggravatedÐ ° Ðsexual€assault€case,€conviction€on€this€lesser€makes€no€practical€difference€because€theÏpunishment€will€be€the€same,€since€the€ð ðone€halfðð€punishment€rule€of€section€664€does€not€applyÏto€this€type€of€indeterminate€term. tÝ ƒM$ÝÔ€X¾ïXXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€However,€be€aware€that€if€trial€counsel€requests€that€an€LIO€instruction€not€be€given,Ð ° Ðand€this€request€appears€based€on€valid€tactical€considerations,€the€failure€to€instruct€on€the€LIO,Ïthough€error,€will€likely€be€found€to€be€ð ðinvited€errorðð€which€cannot€be€challenged€on€appeal.Ï(See€òòBartonóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€p.€198,€citing€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòGrahamóó€(1969)€71€Cal.3d€303,€317„319.)€€ButÐ €Ð Ðrecall€the€point€made€above:€itððs€only€ð ðinvited€errorðð€if€there€is€an€òòexpressóó€objection€to€theÐ pÀ Ðpertinent€instruction,€and€the€objection€is€made€for€bona€fide€tactical€reasons,€and€ð ðnot€out€ofÏignorance€or€mistake.ðð€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòBunyardóó,€òòsupraóó,€45€Cal.3d€at€p.€1234.) áÝ ƒM$ÝÔ€X¾ïXXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€A€court€can€properly€refuse€ð ðÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔargumentativeðð€pinpoint€instructions,€i.e.,€those€whichÐ ° Ðrefer€to€ð ðspecified€items€or€evidenceðð€from€which€the€jury€is€asked€to€draw€ð ðinferences€favorableÏto€the€defendant.ðð€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòWrightóó€(1988)€45€Cal.3d€1126,€1135.)Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ï”#Ô ZÝ ƒM$ÝÔ€X¾ïXXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€I€leave€out€the€entirely€analogous€section€1109,€and€domestic€violence,€only€because€itÐ ° Ðis€not€germane€to€the€topic€of€sex€crime€instructions,€and€because€the€analysis€can€be€carried€overÏfrom€one€to€the€other. dÝ ƒuÙ!ÝÑTRXà3Ø' LetterXà3Ø' Letter3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑ  ÑÑÑÔ€X¾ïXXXÔÝ  Ýñg*ñÑ8€¾ïXdðdÈ8Ññg*ñÔ_Ôà@] ] ìàò òSEX€CRIME€INSTRUCTIONAL€ERROR€ISSUESˆÐ ° ÐÌó óBy€William€Robinsonò òÐ à ÐÌIntroductionó óÐ pÀ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àI€know€what€youððre€thinking.€€There€are€never€any€good€instructional€error€issues€in€sexÏcrime€cases.€€In€most€cases€the€defense€will€be€(1)€the€acts€of€child€molestation€never€took€place,€butÏwere€dreamed€up€by€the€vindictive€mother€or€exaggerated€by€a€jealous€child€or€(2)€there€were€noÏforcible€sex€crimes€because€(a)€it€was€all€consensual€or€(b)€they€got€the€wrong€guy.€€So,€whatÏdifference€will€it€really€make€in€such€cases€if€there€is€some€problem€in€the€definition€of€the€crimes,Ïor€a€failure€to€instruct€on€a€lesser€included€offense?€€All€the€exciting€issues€on€instructional€errorÏcome€in€homicide€law.ÌÌà  àWell,€youððre€wrong.€€The€purpose€of€this€extended€essay€is€to€let€you€know€that€there€areÏsome€good€instructional€error€issues€out€there,€in€a€variety€of€contexts,€which€apply€to€sex€crimeÏcharges€and€trials.€€Most,€if€not€all€of€the€instructional€issues€discussed€here€can€make€a€bigÏdifference€to€your€client,€leading€to€reversals€of€some€or€all€charges,€and€meaningful€reductions€inÏsentence.ÌÌà  àHandling€sex€crime€cases€is€frequently€a€tough€business,€even€for€the€diehard€appellateÏlawyer.€€The€facts€are€often€very€unpleasant,€and€the€ruins€of€peopleððs€lives€are€very€often€all€overÏthe€place.€€But€there€is€also€lots€of€injustice€out€there€ð!ð€people€accused€of€heinous€crimes€that€reallyÏnever€took€place;€people€doing€virtual€life€without€parole€sentences€for€convictions€of€ð ðforcibleðð€sexÏcrimes€where€the€evidence€of€force€was€minuscule€or€absent;€and€people€being€convicted€of€newÏcharged€crimes€through€evidence€of€their€ð ðpropensity€to€commit€sexual€offensesðð€based€on€priorÏoffenses.€€So,€letððs€roll€up€our€sleeves€and€get€to€work.ÌÌà  àWhat€follows€is€a€survey€of€instructional€issues,€in€some€semblance€of€logical€order€whichÏI€hope€is€self„explanatory.€€An€exhaustive€discussion€is€not€possible,€at€least€not€without€monthsÏ(rather€than€weeks)€of€work€on€the€subject.€€However,€I€hope€the€following€suggestions€are€helpfulÏto€all€levels€of€appellate€practitioners,€and€will€provide€you€with€food€for€thought€for€finding€yourÏown€instructional€error€issues€in€sex€crime€cases.ÌÌÓÌLÓÌÓÌL* Óò òI.€à8  àThe€Requirement€of€Correct€and€Full€[And€Not€Over„Inclusive]€Definitions€ofÐ ×$' # ÐTerms€Force,€Duress,€and€Menace€in€Sex€Crimesó ó.€€ÐÇ%!$Ð Ð  ÐÓ€ÓÌÓ€ Óà  àIn€just€about€every€type€of€sex€crime,€involving€either€minor€or€adult€victims,€proof€of€theÏuse€of€force,€duress,€menace,€or€threat€of€bodily€harm€is€either€a€required€element€making€theÏconduct€criminal€or€one€which€elevates€the€degree€or€species€of€the€crime€and€increases€punishmentÏdramatically.€€A€number€of€issues€arise€concerning€the€courtððs€duty€to€give€definitions€of€three€ofÏthese€terms:€force,€duress€and€menace.Ìà  àÐ ß+/'+ Ðà  àThis€is€further€complicated€by€a€number€of€factors:€(a)€the€question€whether€definition€ofÏthese€terms€is€required€sua€sponte,€or€is€only€to€be€given€on€request;€(b)€a€fair€measure€of€conflictÏwithin€the€law€as€to€the€proper€definition€of€the€terms€as€to€particular€crimes;€(c)€a€confusing€arrayÏof€CALJIC€instructions,€some€of€which€provide€standardized€definitions,€and€others€of€which€do€not;Ïand€(d)€inconsistencies€between€the€CALJIC€instructions€and€either€case€law€or€statutory€definitions.€Ï€Ìà  àFirst,€some€basic€principles.€€ò òÐ P   ÐÌÓÌLÓÌó óÓÌL_ÓÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔà  àA.€€ò òà ` àSua€sponte€duty€to€instructó óÐ w Ç  ÐÌà  àThe€general€rule€is€that€absent€a€request,€instructions€defining€particular€terms€need€not€beÏgiven€if€the€terms€used€in€the€instructions€are€ð ðcommonly€understood€by€those€familiar€with€theÏEnglish€language.ðð€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòAndersonóó€(1966)€64€Cal.2d€633,€639Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ï‹#ÔÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔ.)€€However,€there€is€a€sua€sponteÐ 7‡  Ðduty€to€ð ðgive€explanatory€instructions€when€terms€used€in€an€instruction€have€a€technical€meaningÏpeculiar€to€the€law.ðð€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòShoalsóó€(1992)€8€Cal.App.4th€475Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ï<#ÔÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔ,€489„490,€quoting€òòPeopleóó€v.Ð g  ÐòòReynoldsóó€(1988)€205€Cal.App.3d€776,€779Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïi#ÔÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔ;€see€also€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòAndersonóó,€òòsupraóóÔ#†X¾ïXXX¾ï#ÔÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔ,€at€p.€639€and€òòPeopleóóÐ W Ðv.€òòPurcellóó€(1993)€18€Cal.App.4th€65,€71.)€Ð ÷G ÐÔ#†X¾ïXXX¾ï‡#ÔÌà  àApplying€these€principles€to€the€terms€force,€duress€and€menace,€one€would€probably€assumeÏthat€ð ðforce,ðð€a€commonly€used€word,€would€not€require€definition,€but€that€ð ðduressðð€and€ð ðmenace,ððÏmuch€more€arcane€and€sophisticated€terms€of€discourse,€would€require€definition.€€Oddly€enough,Ïuntil€recently€itððs€been€the€other€way€around:€force€pretty€clearly€requires€sua€sponte€definition€inÏsex€crimes;€and€duress€and€menace€have€been€found€to€be€used€in€their€common€sense,€and€notÏrequiring€definition€ð!ð€though€this€latter€point€is€now€up€for€grabs.€€However,€while€the€appropriateÏð ðtechnical€legalðð€definition€of€ð ðforceðð€is€not€disputed,€there€is€considerable€dispute€about€the€correctÏdefinition€of€duress€and€menace.€€ÌÌÓÌLÓÌÓÌLAÓà  àB.€€ò òThe€Elementsó óÐ ŽÞ ÐÓÌLÓÌÓÌL¡Óà  àà ` à1.€€ò òForceó óÐ Å ÐÌà  àòòAndersonóó,€the€seminal€case€on€words€with€ð ðtechnicalðð€versus€ð ðcommonðð€meanings,€òòóóholds€thatÐ ¥!õ! Ðð ðforceðð€and€ð ðfear,ðð€as€used€in€the€crime€of€òòrobberyóó,€do€not€have€a€technical€legal€meaning,€but€areÐ •"å" Ðunderstood€in€their€common€sense.€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€640.)€€However,€in€the€different€context€of€sex€crimes,Ð …#Õ# Ða€number€of€cases€recognize€that€ð ðforceðð€has€a€unique€meaning,€based€on€the€notion€that€the€sexualÏacts€themselves€in€such€crimes€require€some€measure€of€force€being€employed.€€Beginning€in€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔÔ‡ˆÉˆXX¾ïÔòòPeopleóóÐ e%µ % Ðv.€òòCiceroóó€(1984)€157€Cal.App.3d€465,€the€court€recognized€that€for€purposes€of€proving€aÐ i&¹!& Ðforcible€lewd€act€under€Penal€Code€section€288,€subdivision€(b),€(ð ð288(b)ðð)׃&×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€prosecutionÐ m'½"' Ðmust€prove€that€the€defendant€used€ð ðphysical€force€substantially€different€from€orÏsubstantially€greater€than€that€necessary€to€accomplish€the€lewd€act€itself.ðð€Ô#†ˆÉˆˆˆÉg#ÔÔ#†X¾ïXˆˆɆ#Ô(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€474;Ð u)Å$) Ðaccord,€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòBolanderóó€(1994)€23€Cal.App.4th€155,€159.)Ð ° ÐÌà  àBy€parity€of€reasoning,€the€same€rule€should€apply€to€all€sex€crimes€requiring€proof€ofÏð ðforce.ðð€€In€the€crime€of€rape,€for€example,€ð ðforceðð€would€have€to€be€ð ðsubstantially€different€orÏgreaterðð€than€that€required€to€commit€the€act€of€penetration€required€to€constitute€rape.€€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔThe€òòCiceroóóÐ pÀ Ðcourtððs€definition€of€force,€in€fact,€comes€from€the€law€of€rape.€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòCiceroóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€p.€476;Ð ` ° Ðsee€also€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòBergschneideróó€(1989)€211€Cal.App.3d€€144,€153,€where€the€trial€court€gave€theÐ P   ÐòòCiceroóó€definition€of€force€in€a€forcible€rape€and€forcible€oral€copulation€prosecution€and€the€CourtÐ @  Ðof€Appeal,€while€not€directly€addressing€the€issue,€implicitly€accepted€the€òòCiceroóó€instruction€asÐ 0 € Ðcorrect.)€Ìñ^*ñÌñ^*ñà  àTwo€recent€cases€make€it€clear€that€the€òòCiceroóó€definition€of€ð ðforceðð€applies€to€the€crime€ofÐ P  Ðrape.€€The€court€in€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòMomóó€(2000)€80€Cal.App.4th€1217,€while€Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïª#Ôrejecting€a€hybrid€argumentÐ ð@  Ðbased€on€òòCiceroóó€that€rape€in€concert€requires€force€greater€than€that€required€to€commit€forcible€rapeÐ à0  Ðunder€section€261€(òòidóó.,€at€€pp.€1221„1223),€makes€it€clear€that€ð ðforceðð€in€rape€and€related€forcible€sexÐ Ð  Ðcrimes€requires€something€greater€than€what€is€required€to€commit€the€underlying€act€of€intercourse:ÌÌà8  àForce,€within€the€meaning€of€section€261,€subdivision€(a)(2),€is€that€level€of€forceÏsubstantially€different€from€or€substantially€greater€than€that€nec‚essary€to€accomplishÏthe€rape€itself.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌ(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€1224,€citing€òòBergschneideróó,€òòCiceroóó,€and€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòKusumotoóó€(1985)€169€Cal.App.3d€487,Ð `° Ð492-494.)€€Or,€as€more€aptly€phrased€by€the€court€in€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòElamóó€(2001)€91€Cal.App.4th€298,€306,Ð P  Ðð ð[t]he€force€necessary€in€sexual€offense€cases€is€ððphysical€force€substantially€different€from€orÏsubstantially€in€excess€of€that€requiredðð€for€the€commission€of€the€sexual€act.ððÌñ_*ñÌñ_*ñà  àSince€the€òòCiceroóó€definition€of€ð ðforceðð€provides€a€specialized€meaning€for€the€term€peculiarÐ ` Ðto€the€law,€which€the€average€juror€would€not€understand€without€direction€from€the€court,€the€trialÏcourt€is€obligated€to€instruct€on€that€definition€on€its€own€motion€and€errs€when€it€fails€to€give€suchÏan€instruction.€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòPitmonóó€(1985)€170€Cal.App.3d€38,€52€[court€that€decided€òòCiceroóó€findsÐ à0 Ðerror€where€trial€court€fails€to€òòsua€sponteóó€define€ð ðforceðð€per€òòCiceroóó€definition].)Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` à2.à8 ¸ àò òDuressó ó.€€Ð°" ¸ ¸  ÐÌà  àIn€òòPitmonóó,€the€same€court€that€found€a€sua€sponte€duty€to€define€ð ðforceðð€in€connection€withÐ $à" Ða€violation€of€section€288(b)€held€that€because€the€Websterððs€definition€of€ð ðduressðð€was€the€correctÏone€under€the€law,€there€was€no€sua€sponte€duty€to€give€an€instruction€defining€duress.€€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€52;Ð p&À!$ Ðaccord,€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòElamóó,€òòsupraóó,€91€Cal.App.4th€at€p.€307.)€€There€are€two€major€problems€with€thisÐ `'°"% Ðconclusion,€one€of€which€is€revealed€by€common€sense,€and€the€second€of€which€is€addressed€inÏrecent€case€law.Ìñ`*ñÌñ`*ñà  àBegin€by€asking€yourself€if€you€could€define€the€term€ð ðduressðð€effectively€òòwithoutóó€lookingÐ  +p&) Ðit€up€in€a€dictionary?€€The€definition€of€ð ðduressðð€cited€by€the€court€in€òòPitmonóó€is€quite€convoluted:€€Ð ,`'* Їà8  àa€direct€or€implied€threat€of€force,€violence,€danger,€hardship€or€retribution€sufficientÏto€coerce€a€reasonable€person€of€ordinary€susceptibilities€to€(1)€perform€an€act€whichÏotherwise€would€not€have€been€performed€or,€(2)€acquiesce€in€an€act€to€which€oneÏotherwise€would€not€have€submitted.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓ€ÓÌÓ€í.Ó(òòPitmonóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€p.€50.)€€òòElamóó€gets€even€more€complicated,€citing€one€dictionary€defini‚tion€ofÐ è8 Ðð ðððstringent€€compulsion€by€threat€of€danger,€hardship,€or€retribution€.€.€.:€COER‚CION€.€.€.ðððð€and€aÏsecond€ð ðcommon€meaningðð€as€ð ðððcompulsion€or€constraint€by€which€a€person€is€illegally€forced€toÏdo€or€forbear€some€act€by€.€.€.€physical€violence€to€the€person€or€by€threat€of€such€violence,€theÏviolence€or€threat€being€such€as€to€inspire€a€person€of€ordinary€firmness€with€fear€of€serious€injuryÏto€the€person€.€.€.€[or]€reputation.ðððð€(òòElamóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€p.€307,€quoting€Websterððs€Third€New€Internat.Ð ˜ è  ÐDict.€(1993),€p.€703,€col.€2.)Ìña*ñÌña*ñà  àWhatððs€wrong€with€this€analysis?€€The€need€for€sua€sponte€definition€of€words€used€asÏelements€of€crimes€is€obviated€only€if€the€words€in€question€are€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔð ðòòcommonly€understoodóó€by€thoseÐ X¨  Ðfamiliar€with€the€English€language.ððÔ#†X¾ïXXX¾ï¢2#Ô€(òòAndersonóó,€òòsupraóó,€64€Cal.2d€at€p.€639,€emphasis€added.)€€TheÐ H˜  Ðfact€that€Websterððs€definition€is€consonant€with€that€of€Blackððs€does€not,€and€should€not,€settle€theÏquestion€whether€a€term€such€as€ð ðduressðð€is€ð ðcommonly€understood.ðð€€€Just€ask€yourselves,€forÏexample,€how€many€of€your€educated€adult€friends€who€arenððt€criminal€lawyers€could€come€up€withÏa€satisfactory€definition€of€ð ðduressðð€that€would€cover€the€above€concepts€adequately?€€Most€of€usÏwould€say€some‚thing€like€ð ðfelt€compelled€to€do€it.ðð€€Of€course€this€would€be€inadequate,€because€itÏwouldnððt€lay€out€the€requirement€of€threat,€fear,€or€the€reasonableness€of€such€fear,€in€theseÏdefinitions.€€Thus,€the€reasoning€of€òòPitmonóó€and€òòElamóó€on€this€point€should€be€strenuously€resisted.€Ð Ø( Ðð ðCommonly€understoodðð€means€exactly€what€it€says,€and€the€fact€that€an€obscure€legal€term€alsoÏhappens€to€be€defined€appropriately€in€a€large€standard€dictionary€is€an€inadequate€reason€to€holdÏthat€it€is€not€a€legal€term€requiring€sua€sponte€definition.Ìñb*ñÌñb*ñà  àSince€few€courts€will€elevate€reason€and€common€sense€over€precedent,€especially€when€thatÏprecedent€defeats€the€argument€of€a€sex€crime€defendant,€it€is€fortunate€that€we€also€have€a€furtherÏargument,€adopted€recently€by€the€court€in€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòValentineóó€(2001)€93€Cal.App.4th€1241,€as€toÐ h¸ Ðwhy€ð ðduressðð€requires€a€sua€sponte€definition.€€òòValentineóó€held€that€when€the€Legislature€in€1994Ð X ¨ Ðamended€the€statutory€definition€of€ð ðduressðð€in€sections€261and€262€to€specifically€exclude€ð ða€directÏor€implied€threat€of€.€.€.€hardshipðð€as€within€the€definition€of€duress,€it€altered€the€meaning€ofÏð ðduressðð€as€to€all€forcible€sex€crimes.€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€1247„1252.)€€€The€reasoning€of€the€court€inÐ (#x! ÐòòValentineóó€is€quite€sound.€€The€Legislature€in€1990€added€ð ðduressðð€as€a€way€of€committing€the€crimeÐ $h" Ðof€forcible€rape€following€comments€by€the€court€in€òòBergschneider€óóon€the€absurdity€of€allowingÐ %X # Ðduress€to€sustain€every€sex€crime€except€rape.€€Amendments€to€the€new€law€at€first€did€not€defineÏð ðduress,ðð€then€used€the€Blackððs€definition,€and€then,€in€the€version€which€was€enacted€and€becameÏlaw€in€1991,€switched€to€the€Websterððs€definition,€which€included€the€threat€of€ð ðhardship.ðð€ÏHowever,€in€1994,€the€Legislature€changed€the€definition€of€ð ðduressðð€to€delete€the€term€ð ðhardship.ðð€ÏReasoning€that€since€the€whole€point€of€adding€duress€was€to€òòconformóó€the€ways€of€committingÐ ¸)%( Ðforcible€rape€to€the€means€of€committing€other€forcible€sex€crimes,€the€court€in€òòValentineóó€concludedÐ ¨*ø%) Ðthat€the€narrowed€definition€of€ð ðduressðð€applies€to€forcible€oral€copulation€and€digital€penetrationÐ ˜+è&* Ðunder€sections€288a€and€289.€(òòValentineóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€p.€1249„1250)׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ° Ðà  àòòñc*ñÌà  àñc*ñValentineóó€further€concluded€that€the€courts€in€òòPitmonóó€and€òòElamóó€were€wrong€in€ruling€thatÐ à Ðduress€had€no€ð ðtechnical€meaning,ðð€holding€that,€at€least€since€the€1994€amendment,€theÏLegislatureððs€express€act€of€defining€ð ðduressðð€as€excluding€ð ðthreat€of€hardshipðð€gives€the€term€aÏtechnical€meaning€peculiar€to€California€law€which€requires€sua€sponte€definition.€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€1250„Ð ` ° Ð1252.)€€Ìñd*ñÌñd*ñà  àThus,€there€are€two€strong€arguments,€one€supported€by€reasoned€common€sense,€and€theÏother€by€case€law,€as€to€why€courts€have€a€sua€sponte€duty€to€define€ð ðduressðð€as€to€all€sex€crimes.ÌÌà  àà ` à3.€€ò òMenaceó óÐ P  ÐÌà  àDoes€anyone€know€what€ð ðmenaceðð€means?€€After€decades€of€seeing€a€certain€blond€hairedÏterminal€toddler€on€the€comics€page,€most€people€probably€think€it€is€synonymous€with€ð ðannoyance.ðð€ÏSurely,€the€legal€meaning€of€ð ðmenaceðð€is€one€which€requires€sua€sponte€definition.€€Yet€no€court€hasÏfound€a€sua€sponte€duty€to€define€ð ðmenace.ðð€€òòValentineóó€ducked€the€issue,€finding€invited€error€whenÐ ° Ðthe€defense€requested€an€instruction€that€contained€the€term€ð ðmenaceðð€without€tendering€a€definitionÏof€menace.€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€1246.)׃`×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€òòElamóó,€the€court€reached€the€same€result€with€respect€to€ð ðmenaceððÐ à Ðas€it€did€with€ð ðduress,ðð€finding€that€the€dictionary€definition€of€the€word€ð!ð€ð ððða€show€of€intention€toÏinflict€harmðð;€ðða€threatening€gesture,€statement€or€actðððð€ð!ð€was€adequate€to€express€the€legal€meaningÏof€menace,€and€that€sua€sponte€instruction€is€not€required.€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòElamóó,€òòsupraóó,€91€Cal.App.4thÐ `° Ðat€p.€307.)Ìñe*ñÌñe*ñà  àHowever,€while€there€is€not€direct€case€law€authority,€a€good€argument€can€be€made€thatÏòòElamóó€is€wrong,€and€that€ð ðmenaceðð€in€the€context€of€sex€crimes€has€a€particular€legal€meaning€ð!ð€andÐ  p Ða€meaning€in€which€is€subject€to€dispute€€ð!ð€which€requires€sua€sponte€definition.€€In€the€sameÏamendments€which€added€and€defined€ð ðduressðð€as€a€way€of€committing€forcible€rape,€the€LegislatureÏalso€added€ð ðmenaceðð€as€a€way€of€committing€rape,€defining€the€term€as€ð ðany€threat,€declaration,€orÏact€which€shows€an€intention€to€inflict€an€injury€upon€another.ðð€(ðð€261,€subd.€(c);€Stats.€1990,€ch.Ï630.)€€Although€the€court€in€òòElamóó€found€that€the€Legislatureððs€act€of€providing€a€specific€statutoryÐ Ð  Ðdefinition€of€ð ðmenaceðð€does€not€signify€that€the€word€has€a€legal€meaning€different€from€theÏcommon€meaning€(òòibidóó.),€this€begs€the€question€as€to€whether€it€is€fair€to€presume€that€the€averageÐ  ð Ðjuror€understands€this€dictionary€meaning€of€ð ðmenace,ðð€or€would€simply€interpose€common€senseÏand€decide€that€any€annoying€or€threatening€conduct€amounted€to€ð ðmenace.ðð€€As€with€ð ðduress,ðð€itÏmakes€sense€to€challenge€the€assumption€of€òòElamóó€and€other€courts€that€because€the€definition€inÐ pÀ ÐWebsterððs€correlates€with€that€of€Blackððs€or€the€Penal€Code,€that€jurors€would€intrinsicallyÏunderstand€this.€€Menace,€like€duress,€is€a€fairly€arcane€term,€and€itððs€a€pretty€fair€bet€most€averageÏfolks€would€be€hard„pressed€to€come€up€with€an€effective€definition€of€either.€€Thus,€they€are€not,Ïas€used€in€sex€crime€statutes,€words€that€are€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔð ðcommonly€understood€by€those€familiar€with€theÐ 0 € ÐEnglish€language€.€.€.ðð€(òòAndersonóó,€òòsupraóó,€Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïÍM#ÔÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔ64€Cal.€2d€at€p.€639Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïN#ÔÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔ.Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïåN#Ô)Ð  p  Ðñf*ñÌñf*ñà  àThere€is€a€secondary€argument€about€the€duty€to€correctly€define€ð ðmenaceðð€raised€inÏFORECITE.€€A€comment€to€CALJIC€10.42,€which€sets€forth€the€elements€of€a€forcible€lewd€actÏunder€288(b),€refers€to€Civil€Code€section€1569€and€1570€for€a€definition€of€ð ðmenace.ðð€€Section€1570Ïreads€as€follows:ÌÌà8  àMenace€consists€in€a€threat:€Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à1.€Of€such€duress€as€is€specified€in€subdivisions€one€and€three€of€the€lastÏsection;€Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à2.€Of€unlawful€and€violent€injury€to€the€person€or€property€of€any€such€personÏas€is€specified€in€the€last€section;€or,€Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à3.€Of€injury€to€the€character€of€any€such€person.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌSection€1569,€to€which€the€above€section€twice€refers,€reads€as€follows:ÌÌà8  àDuress€consists€in:€€€Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à1.€Unlawful€confinement€of€the€person€of€the€party,€or€the€husband€or€wifeÏof€such€party,€or€of€an€ancestor,€descendent,€or€adopted€child€of€such€party,€husband,Ïor€wife;€Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à2.€Unlawful€detention€of€the€property€of€any€such€person;€or,€Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à3.€Confinement€of€such€person,€lawful€in€form,€but€fraudulently€obtained,€orÏfraudulently€made€unjustly€harassing€or€oppressive.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌIf€you€have€a€case€where€the€court€gives€a€definition€of€ð ðmenaceðð€based€on€the€above€Civil€CodeÏprovisions,€a€strong€argument€can€be€made€that€the€definition€is€both€under„€and€over„inclusive.€€ItÏis€òòunderóó„inclusive,€as€FORECITE€points€out,€because€it€omits€the€requirement,€codified€in€sectionÐ €%Ð # Ð261(c),€that€the€threat€or€act€ð ðshows€an€intention€to€inflict€injury€.€.€.€.ðð€€(F€10.42€n1.)€€And€it€is€òòoveróó„Ð p&À!$ Ðinclusive€because€it€classifies€as€ð ðmenaceðð€threats€of€ð ðinjury€to€the€character€.€.€.ðð€of€a€person€(Civ.ÏCode€ðð€1570,€subd.€3)€and,€if€literally€read€as€incorporating€threats€of€duress,€threats€to€unlawfullyÏor€fraudulently€confine€a€person€without€any€requirement€of€a€threat€of€force.€(Civ.€Code€ðððð€1570,Ïsubd.€1€&€1569,€subds.€1€&€3.)€Ìñh*ñÌñh*ñà  àFORECITE€also€makes€the€same€point€as€to€menace€accepted€by€the€court€in€òòValentineóó€asÐ ,`'* Ðto€duress:€that€ð ðthe€recent€Penal€Code€definition€of€menace€should€be€given€rather€than€the€CivilÏCode€version€proposed€by€CALJICðð€because€(a)€ð ðany€doubt€or€conflict€about€the€correct€statutoryÏdefinition€should€be€resolved€in€favor€of€the€defendant€.€.€.ðð€(F€10.42€n1,€citing€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòBradleyóóÐ à Ð(1983)€146€Cal.App.3d€721,€725)€and€(b)€because€ð ð[sections]€288(a)€and€.€.€.€261€are€in€pari€materiaÏbecause€they€relate€to€the€same€subject€or€object€(i.e.,€sex€offenses)€.€.€.€(Ballantineððs€Law€Dictionary,Ï3d€Ed.1969)€.€.€.€[and]€[i]t€is€well€settled€that€a€word€common€to€two€statutes€which€are€in€pariÏmateria€must€be€given€the€same€meaning€in€each€enactment.ðð€€(F€10.42€n1,€citing€òòGonzales€&€Co.óóÐ P   Ðv.€òòDept.€of€Alc.€Bev.€Controlóó€(1984)€151€Cal.App.3d€172,€178€and€òòDieckmannóó€v.€òòSuperior€CourtóóÐ @  Ð(1985)€175€Cal.App.3d€345,€356.)Ìñi*ñÌñi*ñà  àThus,€a€strong€argument€can€and€should€be€made€that€the€statutory€definition€of€ð ðmenaceððÏin€section€261(c)€must€be€given€as€to€all€charged€sex€crimes,€and€that€the€courtððs€failure€to€do€so€suaÏsponte€is€error.ÌÌÓÌLÓÌÓÌL2]ÓC.à8  à€ò òThe€CALJIC€Hodgepodge€and€Opportunities€for€Definitional€Errors€as€toÐ g  ÐForce,€Duress€&€Menace.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àó óA€review€of€the€standardized€CALJIC€instructions€shows€that€the€required€definitions€ofÐ ç7 Ðforce,€duress€and€menace€are€provided€sparingly€and€inconsistently.€€When,€as€is€typically€the€case,Ïthe€CALJIC€instructions€are€specifically€followed€to€the€letter,€this€will€thus€afford€appellateÏadvocates€with€numerous€possible€arguments€about€the€failure€to€give€the€required€definitions.€€ForÏrape,€CALJIC€10.00€includes,€as€one€would€expect,€the€statutory€definitions€of€ð ðmenaceðð€andÏð ðduress,ðð€but€includes€no€definition€of€ð ðforce.ðð€€Thus,€if€you€have€a€case€where€there€is€any€kind€ofÏfactual€dispute€as€to€whether€a€rape€was€perpetrated€by€use€of€force,€or€whether€the€force€employedÏwas€only€to€commit€the€act€of€penetration€itself,€the€failure€to€give€the€correct€definition€of€ð ðforce,ððÏas€recognized€by€the€courts€in€òòElamóó,€òòMomóó€and€òòBergschneideróó€would€be€error.Ð g· Ðñj*ñÌñj*ñà  àAs€to€the€triad€of€other€forcible€sex€crimes,€sodomy,€oral€copulation,€and€foreign€objectÏpenetration€(ðððð€286,€subd.€(c)(2),€288a,€subd.€(c)(2)€&€289,€subd.€(a)(1)),€the€pattern€CALJICÏinstructions€provide€no€definitions€of€force,€duress€or€menace.€(CALJIC€Nos.€10.20,€10.10€&€10.30.)€ÏThus,€where€there€is€weak€or€equivocal€evidence€of€some€or€all€of€these€elements,€and€theÏprosecution€is€relying€on€them€to€convict,€the€failure€to€define€these€terms€becomes€an€arguableÏappellate€issue.Ìñk*ñÌñk*ñà  àFor€a€forcible€lewd€act€(ðð€288(b)),€the€pattern€instruction,€CALJIC€No.€10.41€defines€ð ðforceððÏbut€not€ð ðmenaceðð€or€ð ðduress.ðð€€Thus€when,€as€is€often€the€case,€the€evidence€of€force€used€for€a€lewdÏtouching€is€weak€or€equivocal,€and€the€prosecutor€falls€back€on€ð ðduressðð€or€ð ðmenaceðð€based€oftenÏon€the€specific€adult€„€child€relationship,€the€failure€to€define€these€terms€provides€a€clear€argumentÏfor€error.€€Finally,€in€child€molest€cases€it€bears€noting€that€the€crime€of€ð ðaggravated€sexual€assaultððÏunder€section€269,€which€elevates€certain€lewd€acts€to€15€to€life€crimes,€usually€includes,€as€anÏelement,€the€commission€of€€one€of€the€foursome€of€sex€crimes€by€means€of€force,€menace,€or€duressÏ(inter€alia).€€Thus,€the€same€arguments€about€sua€sponte€duty€to€define€these€terms€will€apply€to€mostÐ g+·&* Ðprosecutions€under€the€draconian€section€269.ÌÌà  àD.à8 ` àò òFederal€Constitutional€Erroró ó.Ðà` x` x ÐÌà  àThe€point€of€all€this€is€that€the€failure€to€define€a€technical€legal€term€which€is€an€element€ofÏa€charged€crime€is€not€just€error,€but€is€federal€constitutional€error€in€that€it€results€in€incompleteÏand/or€misleading€instructions€on€elements€of€charged€crimes.€(See,€e.g.,€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòHarrisóó€(1994)Ð P   Ð9€Cal.4th€407,€424„425.)€€Ìñl*ñÌñl*ñà  àIndeed,€some€late€1980s€case€law€classified€this€type€of€error€as€requiring€per€se€reversal,Ïreasoning€that€the€omission€deprives€the€defendant€of€the€right€to€have€the€jury€determine€everyÏmaterial€element€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòReynoldsóó,€òòsupraóó,€205Ð P  ÐCal.App.3d€at€p.€779;€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòShoalsóó,€òòsupraóó,€8€Cal.App.4th€at€pp.€489„490.)€€The€reasoning€ofÐ ð@  Ðthese€cases€does€not€logically€survive€more€recent€decisions€from€the€high€courts€of€California€andÏthe€United€States,€which€hold€that€òòChapmanóó€harmless€error€analysis׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€applies€even€to€the€failure€toÐ Ð  Ðprovide€any€instruction€on€an€element€of€a€charged€crime.€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòFloodóó€(1998)€18€Cal.4th€470,Ð À Ð492-504€and€òòÔ% ‡ ÔNederóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó€(1999)€527€U.S.€1Ô%†ËlÔ,€8-15.)€€After€these€cases,€we€should€argueÐ ° Ðthat€the€òòChapmanóó€standard€applies.€€Thus,€when€the€jury€lacks€definitional€guidance€as€to€the€uniqueÐ  ð Ðmeanings€of€force,€duress€and€menace€in€sex€crimes,€reversal€is€required€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔunless€the€prosecution€canÐ à Ðestablish€that€itððs€ð ðclear€Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ï#n#Ôbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€a€rational€jury€would€have€found€theÐ €Ð Ðdefendant€guilty€absent€the€error.€.€.€.ðð€(òòNederóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€p.€18.)Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àò òE.ó ó€€ò òHere,€But€Not€There?ó ó€€Ð P  ÐÌà  àItððs€not€always€going€to€be€simple.€€Many€times€in€sex€crime€cases€the€charges€involveÏmultiple€crimes,€each€with€its€own€separate€instruction,€some€of€which€contain€the€pertinentÏdefinitions,€and€others€of€which€do€not.€€For€example,€your€client€could€be€charged€with€two€countsÏof€aggravated€sexual€assault€on€a€child,€based€on€a€rape€and€an€oral€copulation,€and€a€288(b).€€On€theÏrape„based€269,€the€jury€would€get€the€correct€definitions€of€duress€and€menace,€and€on€the€288(b),Ïtheyððll€get€the€correct€definition€of€ð ðforce.ðð€€Anticipate€that€the€government€will€argue€in€its€brief€thatÏthe€jury€would€have€reasonably€applied€these€correct€definitions€to€all€of€the€charged€crimes,€and€theÏinstructions,€taken€as€a€whole,€are€therefore€correct€and€complete.€(See,€e.g.,€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔÔ‡ˆÉˆXX¾ïÔòòPeopleóó€v.€òòBurgeneróóÐ À! Ð(1986)€41€Cal.3d€505,€538,€disapproved€on€other€grounds€in€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòReyesóó€(1998)€19Ð Ä"  ÐCal.4th€743€[correctness€of€jury€instruc‚tions€determined€from€the€entire€charge,€not€parts€ofÏan€instruction€or€a€partic‚ular€instructionÔ#†ˆÉˆˆˆÉÛr#ÔÔ#†X¾ïXˆˆÉúr#Ô].)€Ð Ì$ " Ðñm*ñÌñm*ñà  àYour€response€to€this€line€of€argument€ð!ð€or,€more€effectively,€your€attack€by€anticipation€inÏthe€opening€brief€ð!ð€will€be€to€point€out€that€the€instructions€given€as€to€each€specific€crime€apply,Ïby€the€express€language€of€the€instruction,€òòonlyóóto€these€particular€crimes,€usually€commencing€withÐ  (ð#& Ðlanguage€to€the€effect€of,€ð ðIn€the€crime€charged€in€count€3,€forcible€lewd€act€on€a€child€[etc.].€.€.€.ðð€Ð )à$' ÐThe€jury€is€told€to€apply€that€instruction€only€as€to€the€particular€crime€for€which€it€is€given,€andÏjurors,€as€we€all€know,€are€presumed€to€follow€instructions€carefully.€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔ(See,€e.g.,€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòMickeyóóÐ  ð Ð(1991)€54€Cal.3d€612,€689,€fn.€17€[Ô‡ˆÉˆXX¾ïÔð ðThe€crucial€assumption€underlying€our€constitutionalÐ à Ðsystem€of€trial€by€jury€is€that€jurors€generally€understand€and€faithfully€follow€instructions.ðð]Ô#†ˆÉˆˆˆÉ;w#ÔÔ#†X¾ïXˆˆɺw#ԀР”ä ÐThe€natural€response€of€jurors,€after€being€told€that€a€particular€definition€of€ð ðmenaceðð€applies€to€oneÏcrime,€would€not€to€be€to€apply€the€same€definition€to€another€crime€ð!ð€at€least€not€without€guidanceÏfrom€the€court€[or€counsel]€on€this€subject€ð!ð€but€to€apply€the€given€definition€of€menace€to€the€crimeÏto€which€it€is€attached,€and€apply€their€own€common€sense€understanding€of€the€term€to€the€others.€ÏÌñn*ñÌñn*ñà8  àF.à8` Ð Ð àò òRelated€and€Important€Side„Issue:€€Attacking€Sufficiency€ofÐ H ˜  ÐEvidence€Based€on€Insufficient€Evidence€ofÏForce/Menace/Duress/Threats,€etc.ó óÐ(x ` x` x ÐÌà  àThis€is€supposed€to€be€an€extended€essay€about€instructional€error€in€sex€crimes.€€However,Ïa€short€tangent€is€necessary€here.€€If€you€have€a€case€where€the€evidence€of€the€required€elements€isÏweak,€or€simply€absent,€you€should,€of€course,€raise€a€sufficiency€of€evidence€argument,€which€youÏcan€then€follow€up€with€an€instructional€error€claim,€as€discussed€above,€and/or€a€lesser€includedÏinstructional€error€argument,€as€discussed€below.€€If€you€can€persuade€a€state€or€federal€court€thatÏthere€wasnððt€sufficient€proof€of€one€of€the€required€elements,€then€the€conviction€on€that€charge€mustÏbe€reversed,€without€any€retrial€of€the€charge.€€Ìño*ñÌño*ñà  àOf€course,€sufficiency€claims€face€a€very€tough,€uphill€road€because€the€standard€of€reviewÏis€so€unfavorable.€€Although€it€is€settled€that€substantial€evidence€must€support€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔeach€essentialÐ xÈ Ðelement€of€the€offense€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòJohnson€óó(1980)€26€Cal.3d€557,€Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïÕ~#ÔÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔ576;€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòCejaóó€(1993)€4Ð h¸ ÐCal.4th€1134,€1138),€we€are€normally€doomed€by€the€relaxed€standard€as€to€what€is€ð ðsubstantial,ððÏin€which€the€review‚ing€court€examines€the€entire€record€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€judgmentÏand€presumes€the€existence€of€every€fact€that€can€reasonably€be€deduced€from€the€evidence,€askingÏð ð.€.€.€whether€.€.€.€òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crimeÐ (x Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ððÔ#†X¾ïXXX¾ï†#ÔÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔ.€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòTowleróó€(1982)€31€Cal.3d€105,€117,€quoting€òòJacksonóó€v.Ð h ÐòòVirginiaóó€(1979)€443€U.S.€307,€318„319Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïÓ#Ô.)€€€Keep€in€mind,€though,€that€sometimes€you€can€win€thisÐ  X Ðclaim€on€one€of€several€convictions€where€the€showing€is€insubstantial.€€Sometimes€in€multi„countÏcases,€there€is€solid€proof€as€to€some€or€most€counts,€but€a€failure€to€prove€that€one€or€more€of€theÏacts€involved€force,€duress,€menace€or€threats.€€In€those€cases€ð!ð€particularly€where€a€partial€reversalÏwill€still€leave€the€defendant€with€a€lengthy€sentence€ð!ð€reversals€are€to€be€had€as€to€the€counts€withÏthe€weak€evidence.€€Also,€often€the€court€can€simply€reduce€the€conviction€to€a€lesser€included€crimeÏð!ð€e.g.,€a€nonforcible€lewd€act€under€section€288(a),€rather€than€a€forcible€288(b)€ð!ð€which€can€benefitÏyour€client€in€terms€of€the€sentence€that€can€be€imposed.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ˜&è!$ Ðñp*ñÐ ˆ'Ø"% Ðñp*ñà  àMy€other€point€here€would€be€that€even€where€you€think€thereððs€enough€for€court€to€hang€itsÏhat€and€find€sufficient€evidence,€raising€a€sufficiency€argument€helps€to€set€up€related€arguments€onÏinstructional€error€as€to€elements,€and/or€LIO€instructional€error.€€I€always€like€to€make€the€mostÏdetailed€argument€about€how€weak€the€evidence€was€in€a€sufficiency€claim;€you€can€then€refer€backÏby€way€of€more€cursory€summary€in€your€prejudice€discussion€of€instructional€error.Ìñq*ñÌñq*ñà  àKeep€in€mind€that€a€claim€of€insufficient€evidence€is€always€federal€constitutional€errorÏbecause€the€defendant€has€a€due€process€right€to€have€the€prosecution€prove€all€the€elements€beyondÏa€reasonable€doubt.€€In€this€regard€you€must€òòalwaysóó€cite€the€applicable€U.S.€Supreme€Court€case€lawÐ 0 € Ðð!ð€i.e.,€òòJacksonóó€v.€òòVirginiaóó,€òòsupraóó,€443€U.S.€307€and,€if€the€insufficiency€is€to€an€enhancementÐ  p  Ðprovision€which€increases€the€maximum€term,€òòApprendióó€v.€òòNew€Jerseyóó€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔ(2000)€530€U.S.€466€Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ï=Š#Ôð!ð€inÐ `  Ðorder€to€preserve€your€clientððs€rights€to€raise€the€sufficiency€claim€in€a€federal€habeas€petition.€(SeeÐ P  ÐòòDuncanóó€v.€òòHenryóó€(1995)€513€U.S.€364€[requirement€that€federal€constitutional€claim€be€presentedÐ ð@  Ðand€exhausted€in€state€court€before€collateral€federal€review€is€allowable];€and€28€U.S.C.€ððÏ2254(d)(1)€[AEDPA€requirement€that€state€courtððs€decision€only€be€reversed€if€it€is€ð ðððcontrary€to€orÏinvolves€an€unreasonable€application€of,€clearly€established€federal€law€as€determined€the€butÏSupreme€Court€of€the€United€Statesðð].)Ìñr*ñÌñr*ñà  àHowever,€a€word€of€warning€as€to€sufficiency€claims€involving€the€force„duress„meance„¼threats€elements,€which€applies€equally€to€prejudice€arguments€for€instructional€errors€on€the€sameÏelements.€€Often€a€case€is€presented€to€the€jury,€in€terms€of€evidence€and€prosecution€argument,Ïbased€on€more€than€one€theory€of€crime€ð!ð€that€a€parental€figureððs€lewd€acts€were€committed€by€forceÏand€duress,€force,€menace€or€threat,€etc.€€To€sustain€a€sufficiency€argument,€you€will€have€toÏpersuade€the€appellate€court€that€there€was€a€failure€of€proof€as€to€each€such€element,€discussedÏseparately,€since€even€if€thereððs€insufficient€proof€of€force,€itððs€enough€if€the€court€can€find€anÏatmosphere€of€compulsion€amounting€to€duress€in€the€surrounding€circumstances€of€sexual€acts.Ìñs*ñÌñs*ñà  àOf€course,€similar€problem€will€arise€in€prejudice€discussion€of€errors€on€definition€ofÏelements,€and€in€failure€to€give€lesser€included€instructions.€€You€may€have€a€strong€case€that€theÏcourt€gave€erroneous€instructions€on€ð ðduressðð€that€included€threat€of€hardship,€but€lose€because€theÏcourt€finds€overwhelming€evidence€of€ð ðforceðð€in€the€crime,€rendering€any€error€harmless.€€Here€tooÏyou€will€have€to€argue€the€weakness€of€proof€of€all€the€various€paths€to€conviction€for€whichÏevidence€and/or€argument€are€presented€by€the€prosecution.€€You€can,€for€example,€argue€in€theÏcontext€of€instructional€error,€subject€to€the€stringent€òòChapmanóó€standard,€that€the€erroneousÐ  #ð! Ðinstructions€on€duress€require€reversal€because€the€evidence€of€force,€though€arguably€strong€enoughÏto€survive€a€sufficiency€challenge,€it€was€sufficiently€weak€or€equivocal€that€there€is€not€a€strongÏlikelihood€that€the€jury€would€have€convicted€on€this€theory,€and€thus€it€is€not€ð ðclear€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€that€a€rational€jury€would€have€found€the€defendant€guilty€absent€the€error.€.€.€.ððÏ(òòNederóó,€òòsupraóó,€527€U.S.€at€pp.€18„19.)€€Ð P( #& Ðñt*ñÌñt*ñà  àIn€this€regard,€always€keep€in€mind€that€your€prejudice€arguments,€even€more€thanÏsufficiency€arguments,€are€your€chance€to€put€together€the€great€closing€argument€trial€counselÏprobably€didnððt€make;€since€you€are€not,€in€such€an€argument,€restricted€to€a€review€of€the€evidenceÐ ,`'* Ðin€a€light€favorable€to€the€governmentððs€case,€a€prejudice€argument€as€to€instructional€error€gives€youÏthe€chance€to€painstakingly€point€out€all€of€the€weaknesses€and€inconsistencies€in€the€prosecutionððsÏcase,€and€all€the€ways€in€which€a€rational€jury,€properly€instructed,€could€have€doubted€theÏsufficiency€of€proof€of€duress,€force,€or€what€have€you.€€Remember:€if€youððve€got€something€toÏargue,€never€make€weak€or€abbreviated€prejudice€argument€on€the€facts;€and€if€youððve€only€got€aÏlittle€bit€to€argue,€make€the€most€of€it,€emphasizing€the€strict€nature€of€the€ð ðharmless€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubtðð€test.Ìñu*ñÌñu*ñà  àFinally,€if€you€lose€on€sufficiency€grounds,€keep€plugging€with€the€various€instructionalÏarguments€presented€here€as€a€more€fruitful€area€of€attack.€€ÌÌII.€€ò òOther€Instructional€Error€Element€Issuesó óÐ P  ÐÌà  àA€few€suggestions€of€some€additional€instructional€error€issues€concerning€the€elements€ofÏsex€crimes€is€provided€here,€with€no€claim€of€being€exhaustive.€€You€should€always€look€for€yourÏown,€comparing€the€language€of€statutes€with€instructions,€and€utilizing€the€frequently€updatedÏresource€of€FORECITE€for€guidance.ÌÌà  àA.€€ò òError€in€Sodomy€Instruction€re:€Penetration€Elementó ó€€Ð à ÐÌà  à(Note:€€You€will€find€this€argument€in€FORECITE€(F„10.20e.)€€However,€I€can€attest€that€itÏwas€I€who€dreamed€it€up€while€assisting€our€panel€attorney€Jan€Stiglitz€on€a€case,€and€that€it€wasÏpassed€on€to€FORECITE€after€I€phoned€Tom€Lundy€to€ask€if€anyone€had€ever€raised€the€issue,€and,Ïas€it€turned€out,€no€one€had.€€I€say€this€not€only€to€beat€my€own€drum,€which€I€do€enjoy€doing,€butÏalso€to€encourage€all€of€you€to€share€your€own€instructional€error€ideas€with€FORECITE.€€AlthoughÏTom€and€his€colleagues€are€making€some€dough€from€FORECITE,€its€value€as€a€collective€resourceÏis€nearly€immeasurable,€and€we€owe€it€to€each€other€to€pass€on€our€own€brain€work€aboutÏinstructional€issues€ð!ð€good,€crazy€or€clever€ð!ð€to€FORECITE€for€dissemination€to€the€appellate€andÏtrial€counsel€cadre.)Ìñv*ñÌñv*ñà  àThe€statutory€definition€of€sodomy€is€ð ðsexual€conduct€consisting€of€contact€between€the€penisÏof€one€person€and€the€anus€of€another€person.€€Any€sexual€penetration,€however€slight,€is€sufficientÏto€complete€the€crime€of€sodomy.ðð€(ðð€286.)€€This€creates€òòtwoóó€discrete€elements€of€the€actus€reus€ofÐ °"  Ðthe€crime,€the€first€being€ð ðcontactðð€and€the€second€ð ðpenetrationðð;€from€this€statutory€language,€it€isÏobvious€that€no€conviction€is€proper€unless€both€these€elements€are€proven.€€Since€penetration,€byÏdefinition,€is€more€significant€than€mere€ð ðcontact,ðð€itððs€the€second€element,€penetration,€which€isÏcontrolling.€€At€least€one€case,€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòJoineróó€(1989)€204€Cal.App.3d€221,€224,€holds€that€failureÐ p&À!$ Ðto€instruct€on€penetration€is€constitutional€error.Ìñw*ñÌñw*ñà  àThe€5th€Edition€of€CALJIC€defined€sodomy€as€follows:€ð ðAn€act€of€sodomy€is€sexual€conductÏconsisting€of€any€penetration,€however€slight,€of€the€anus€of€one€person€by€the€penis€of€another.ððÏ(CALJIC€No.€10.20€„€10.26€(5th€ed.€1988).)€€This€instruction€properly€resolves€the€ambiguity€of€theÏstatute€by€making€it€clear€that€òòpenetrationóó€is€the€real€Ô_Ôrequirement.Ð ,`'* Ðñx*ñ‡ñx*ñà  àThis€correct€instruction€was€inexplicably€altered€in€the€6th€Edition€of€CALJIC,€where€theÏdefinition€of€sodomy€reads€as€follows:€ÌÌà8  àð ðSodomyðð€is€sexual€conduct€consisting€of€contact€between€the€penis€of€one€personÏand€the€anus€of€another€person.€€Any€sexual€penetration,€however€slight,€is€sufficientÏto€complete€the€crime€of€sodomy.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌ(CALJIC€Nos.€10.20€„€10.26€(6th€Ed.,€1996.)Ìñy*ñÌñy*ñà  àOf€course,€this€instruction€has€the€beauty€of€more€accurately€tracking€the€language€of€theÏstatute.€€But,€in€so€doing,€it€erroneously€suggests€that€ð ðpenetration,€however€slightðð€òòmeans€the€sameÐ `  Ðthingóó€as€ð ðcontactðð;€this€is€not€so.€€Clearly,€mere€ð ðcontactðð€is€lesser€and€different€than€penetration.€Ð P  ÐYou€can€have€contact€with€a€permeable€object€without€penetrating€it.€€To€take€an€unrelated€example,ÏI€can€achieve€a€ð ðtouchingðð€of€a€ripe€peach€without€penetrating€its€skin,€even€though€not€much€isÏrequired€for€such€a€penetration.Ìñz*ñÌñz*ñà  àThus,€the€instruction€is€defective€in€failing€to€explain€that€penetration€means€something€moreÏthan€mere€ð ðcontact.ðð€€If€the€trial€court€instructs€pursuant€to€an€unmod‚ified€version€of€the€currentÏCALJIC€No.€10.20€et€seq.,€a€strong€argument€can€be€made€that€the€court€is€giving€the€juryÏmisleading€and€incorrect€instructions€on€the€crime€of€sodomy.€€Instructions€on€sodomy€areÏincomplete€if€they€do€not€make€it€plain€that€the€requirement€of€ð ðcontactðð€and€ð ðpenetrationðð€areÏòòseparateóó€elements€requiring€proof,€and€mere€evidence€of€contact€does€not€prove€penetration.Ð `° Ðñ{*ñÌñ{*ñà  àThe€requirement€of€ð ðpenetrationðð€is€an€element€of€the€charge€requiring€proof€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€(òòNederóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€òòsupraóó.)€€Mere€evidence€of€contact€does€not€proveÐ 0€ Ðpenetration€and,€hence,€the€current€CALJIC€instruction€implicates€the€federal€constitutional€right€toÏfull€and€accurate€instructions€on€the€elements€of€charged€crime.€(òòIbidóó.)Ð ` Ðñ|*ñÌñ|*ñà  àThis€means€that€this€type€of€error€triggers€the€strict€òòChapmanóó€test,€compelling€reversal€unlessÐ ð@ Ðthe€error€can€be€shown€to€be€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Of€course,€if€the€evidenceÏunquestionably€shows€penetration,€the€error€will€be€harmless€even€under€this€standard.€€However,Ïin€many€sodomy€cases,€there€may€be€strong€evidence€of€a€touching€but€weak€or€equivocal€evidenceÏof€penetration.€€In€such€cases,€a€sufficiency€argument€will€generally€fall€on€deaf€ears,€under€theÏrelaxed€ð ðsubstantial€evidenceðð€standard.€€However,€on€the€same€facts,€the€instructional€errorÏargument€presented€here€would€require€reversal€under€òòChapmanóó€harmless€error€analysis.Ð $à" ÐÌà  àB.ò òà8 ` àOdd€Facts€Make€Bad€Law,€But€Try€to€Make€Something€Out€of€it:€Ð p&À!$ Ð288ððs€Where€the€D€Directs€the€V€to€Do€the€Touching,€for€Dððs€orÏVððs€Gratification,€and€the€Requirement€of€a€Modified€InstructionÏon€Actus€Reus€and€Specific€Intent.€Ð ` x` x Ѐó óÐ 0*€%( ÐÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔà  àIt€has€been€clear€for€some€time€now€that€a€defendant€can€be€culpable€for€a€violation€of€sectionÐ  +p&) Ð288(a)€where€the€touching€is€done€by€the€child€victim€on€his€or€her€own€person€at€the€instigation€ofÐ ,`'* Ða€defendant€acting€with€the€required€specific€intent.€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòAustinóó€(1980)€111€Cal.App.3d€110,Ð ° Ð115„116;€accord,€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòMeachamóó€(1984)€152€Cal.App.3d€142,€152„154,€òòÔ#†X¾ïXXX¾ï°#ÔÔ‡ˆÉˆXX¾ïÔPeopleóó€v.€òòGaglioneóóÐ  ð Ð(1994)€26€Cal.App.4th€1291,€1300Ô#†X¾ïXˆˆÉ²#Ô.)€€€Putting€the€holdings€of€these€three€cases€together,€aÐ ¤ô Ðviolation€of€section€288(a)€can€be€committed€without€an€actual€touching€by€the€defendant€where€(a)Ïthe€defendant€instructs€or€directs€a€child€under€the€age€of€14€to€touch€his€or€herself,€(b)€the€childÏactually€touches€herself€and€(3)€the€defendant€has€the€specific€intent€to€arouse,€appeal€to€or€gratifyÏthe€sexual€desires€of€either€party.€(òòIbidóó.)€×ƒ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð x È Ðñ}*ñÌñ}*ñà  àYou€may€think€this€odd€type€of€crime€is€one€youððll€never€see.€€But€Iððve€had€one€such€case,Ïand€have€seen€or€heard€about€several€others,€mostly€connected€with€the€taking€of€lewd€photographsÏor€videos,€where€the€defendant€never€actually€touches€the€victim,€but€directs€him€or€her€to€touchÏhimself€or€herself€in€a€lewd€manner.Ìñ~*ñÌñ~*ñà  àIn€any€case,€special€instructional€guidance€is€required€when€a€288(a),€or€other€sex€crime€isÏcharged€based€on€the€victim€doing€the€touching€his€or€herself.€€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔIn€addition€to€the€standardÐ øH  Ðinstructions€given€pursuant€to€CALJIC€No.€10.41,€a€proper€instruction,€modeled€after€the€holdingsÏin€the€above€cases,€would€read€as€follows:ÌÌà8  àThe€touching€required€by€section€288(a)€may€be€done€by€the€child€of€his€or€her€ownÏperson€if€the€following€elements€have€been€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt:€Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïÕ¶#Ô(a)Ð ¨ø Ðthe€defendant€instructed€or€directed€the€child€under€the€age€of€14€to€touch€his€orÏherself,€(b)€the€child€actually€touches€his€or€herself€and€(3)€the€defendant€has€theÏspecific€intent€to€arouse,€appeal€to€or€gratify€the€sexual€desires€of€himself€or€of€theÏchild.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àA€failure€to€instruct€on€each€of€these€three€non„standard€elements€ð!ð€the€act€of€direction€orÏinstruction€by€the€defendant,€the€requirement€of€an€òòactual€touchingóó€by€the€victim,€coupled€with€theÐ 8ˆ Ðrequired€sexual€intent€on€the€part€of€the€instigator€ð!ð€leaves€the€jury€to€speculate€as€how€the€defendantÏcould€have€committed€the€requisite€ð ðtouchingðð€element€of€a€violation€of€section€288(a),€and€how€toÏapply€the€mental€state€requirement€of€the€law.€€Since€instructions€on€this€element€of€the€crime€asÏcommitted€are€essential€to€a€proper€finding€of€aiding€and€abetting€culpability,€an€instruc‚tion€on€suchÏð ðconstructive€touchingðð€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòMeachamóó,€òòsupraóó,€152€Cal.€App.3d€at€pp.€152„154)€is€requiredÐ è!8 Ðsua€sponte€as€ša€general€prin‚ciple€of€law€relevant€to€the€issues€raised€by€the€evidence.€(òòPeopleóó€v.Ð Ø"(  ÐòòBrevermanóó€(1998)€19€Cal.4th€142,€154;€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòSt.€Martinóó€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔ(1970)€1€Cal.3d€524,€Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ï˜½#Ô531.)€€€Ô_ÔÐ È#! Ðñ*ñ‡ñ*ñà  àThis€type€of€instructional€omission€triggers€the€òòChapmanóó€test€for€harmless€error€analysisÐ ° Ðbecause€it€implicates€a€defendantððs€right€to€jury€findings,€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€as€to€all€of€theÏelements€of€a€charged€crime.€(òòEstelleóó€v.€òòMcGuireóó€(1991)€502€U.S.€62,€69,€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòHarrisóó,€òòsupraóó,Ð à Ð9€Cal.4th€at€pp.€424„425.)€€Although€a€harmless€error€argument,€even€under€òòChapmanóó,€may€be€hardÐ €Ð Ðto€make€with€certain€factual€scenarios,€a€strong€argument€can€be€made€when,€as€is€often€the€case€withÏsuch€charges,€the€lewd€touchings€by€the€victim€of€his€or€herself€were€done€for€the€purpose€ofÏfacilitating€the€taking€of€video€or€photographs.€€One€can€at€least€argue€that€the€defendantððs€intent€wasÏto€disseminate€the€videos€or€photographs,€for€profit€or€other€motives,€and€not€for€sexual€gratification.€ÏWithout€proper€instructional€guidance,€a€jury€could€convict€based€on€€a€self„touching€by€the€victimÏwhere€the€òòvictimóó€had€the€required€lewd€intent.€With€proper€instructions,€the€same€jury€couldÐ  p  Ðreasonably€rejected€the€ð ðlewd€intentðð€requirement€as€applied€to€the€defendantððs€mental€state€at€theÏtime€of€the€touching,€signifying€that€the€error€was€not€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ÌÌà  àC.à8 ` àò òAiding€and€Abetting€Instructional€Errors.ó óÐà0 ` x` x ÐÌà  àIf€your€client€is€not€the€actual€perpetrator€of€some€or€all€charged€crimes,€instructions€willÏhave€to€be€given€as€to€aiding€and€abetting€culpability.€€Typically,€this€means€the€jury€is€given€theÏstandard€instructions€pursuant€to€CALJIC€Nos.€3.00€and€3.01,€and€nothing€else.€€These€instructionsÏare€deficient€in€several€respects,€two€of€which€are€highlighted€here.€€First,€the€instruction€fails€toÏconvey€the€requirement€that€an€aider€and€abettor€act€with€a€òòspecific€intentóó€to€facilitate€theÐ €Ð Ðperpetratorððs€commission€of€the€charged€crime.€(See€òòÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔÔ‡ˆÉˆXX¾ïÔPeopleóó€v.€òòMendozaóó€(1998)€18€Cal.4th€1114,Ð pÀ Ð1131.)Ô#†ˆÉˆˆˆÉÆ#ÔÔ#†X¾ïXˆˆÉ2Æ#ÔÐ tÄ Ðñ€*ñÌñ€*ñà  àThis€omission€is€very€problematical€for€òògeneralóóintent€offenses,€such€as€rape€and€otherÐ h¸ Ðforcible€sex€crimes,€where€the€jury€is€particularly€instructed€that€only€general€criminal€intent€isÏrequired.€€In€such€cases,€as€in€òòMendozaóó,€which€involved€a€general€intent€target€crime€of€shooting€atÐ H˜ Ðan€occupied€building,€the€instructions€on€aiding€and€abetting,€which€vaguely€suggest€a€requiredÏð ðpurposeðð€of€facilitating€the€charged€crime,€are€trumped€by€the€general€intent€instructions,€which€tellÏthe€jury€that€the€defendant€need€only€intend€to€commit€the€act,€and€need€not€even€know€that€it€isÏcriminal.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ÔÐ  X Ðñ*ñ‡ñ*ñà  àA€second€failing€in€the€standard€instruction€under€CALJIC€No.€3.01€is€the€absence€of€anyÏrequirement€that€the€jury€find€that€the€perpetrator€committed€the€underlying€crime.€€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔThat€instructionÐ  ð Ðrequires€proof€that€a€person,€acting€with€(1)€knowledge€of€the€perpetratorððs€unlaw‚ful€purpose€andÏ(2)€the€intent€or€purpose€of€facilitating€the€commis‚sion€of€the€offense,€(3)€aid,€promote,€encourage,Ïor€instigate,€through€act€or€advice,€the€commission€of€a€crime.€(CALJIC€3.01;€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòBeemanóó,Ð pÀ Ðòòsupraóó,€35€Cal.3d€at€p.€561.)€€There€is€a€gaping€hole€in€this€pattern€instruc‚tion€in€that€nowhere€is€aÐ ` ° Ðjury€told€that€to€find€liability€of€an€aider€and€abettor,€they€must€òòfirst€determine€the€culpability€of€theÐ P   Ðper‚petratoróó.€€Deci‚sional€law€makes€it€clear€that€this€is€a€prerequisite€to€aider€and€abettor€liability.Ð @  ÐÔ#†X¾ïXXX¾ïÛÊ#Ô(See,€e.g.,€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔòòPeopleóó€v.€òòWoodsóó€(1992)€8€Cal.App.€€4th€1570,€1586Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïÎ#Ô;€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔòòPeopleóó€v.€òòPattersonóó€(1989)€209€Cal.Ð 0 € ÐApp.3d€610,€614Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ï Î#Ô;€and€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔòòPeopleóó€v.€òòLuparelloóó€(1986)€187€Cal.App.3d€410,€439;€see€also€the€post„Ð  p  ÐòòPrettymanóó€version€of€the€ð ðnatural€and€probable€consequencesðð€corollary€to€aiding€and€abettingÐ `  Ðculpability,€which€requires,€inter€alia,€findings€(1)€that€the€charged€crimes€were€committed€and€(2)Ïthat€the€defendant€intended€to€aid€and€abet€a€lesser€crime€and€that€(3)€a€co-principal€in€the€crimeÏwhich€the€defendant€intended€to€aid€and€abet€commit‚ted€the€charged€crimes.€(CALJIC€3.02€(6thÏEd.).)€€Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ï;Ï#ÔÐ Ð  Ðñ‚*ñÌñ‚*ñà  àBoth€these€errors€implicate€a€defendantððs€federal€constitutional€rights€since€proper€instructionÏon€the€elements€of€aiding€and€abetting€is€the€equivalent€of€instructions€on€the€elements€of€crimesÏwhen€the€prosecution€relies€on€an€aiding€and€abetting€theory.€(Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔòòMartinezóó€v.€òòBorgóó€(9th€Cir.€1991)Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïÃÒ#ÔÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔ€937Ð à ÐF.2d€422,€423„425Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ï1Ó#Ô.)Ð €Ð Ðñƒ*ñÌñƒ*ñà  àI€have€attached€sample€briefing€from€a€case€involving€both€these€two€issues€òòandóó€the€failureÐ `° Ðto€instruct€on€constructive€touching,€as€applied€to€an€aider€and€abettor.€(See€Sample€Brief€No.€1.)€ÌÌIIIà8  àò òA€Big€Instructional€Error€Tip:€€Always€Watch€For€Jury€Questions€on€ElementsÐ 0€ Ðof€Crimes,€and€the€Courtððs€Responseó ó.Ð pÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àOne€of€the€best€ways€to€find€a€winning€instructional€error€argument€is€by€effectively€miningÏthe€deliberating€juryððs€requests€for€clarification€or€explanation€of€instructions.€The€leading€case€onÏthis€subject€is€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔòòPeopleóó€v.€òòThompkinsóó€(1987)€195€Cal.App.3d€244,€where€the€court€artfully€explainsÐ à0 Ðthe€enhanced€nature€of€the€trial€courtððs€instructional€duties€when€a€deliberating€jury€requestsÏclarification€on€an€issue.ÌÌà8  àÔ#†X¾ïXXX¾ïFÖ#ÔA€juryððs€request€for€reinstruction€or€clarification€should€alert€the€trial€judge€that€theÐ  #ð! Ðjury€has€focused€on€what€it€believes€are€the€critical€issues€in€the€case.€€The€judgeÏmust€give€these€in‚quiries€serious€consideration.€€Why€has€the€jury€focused€on€thisÏissue?€€Does€it€indicate€the€jurors€by-and-large€understand€the€applicable€law€orÏperhaps€it€suggests€a€source€of€confusion?€€If€confusion€is€indicated,€is€it€simplyÐ `'°"% Ðunfamiliarity€with€legal€terms€or€is€it€more€basically€a€misunderstanding€of€anÏimportant€legal€concept?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌ(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€250;€cited€with€approval€in€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòBeardsleeóó€(1991)€53€Cal.3d€68,€97.)Ð €Ð ÐÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔñ„*ñÌñ„*ñà  àWhen€such€queries€are€presented€to€a€trial€judge,€the€usual€temptation€is€to€reiterateÏinstructions€already€given,€or€emphasize€particular€parts€of€them.€€However,€as€the€court€in€òòÔ#†X¾ïXXX¾ïTÚ#ÔPeopleóóÐ P   Ðv.€òòMooreóó€(1996)€13€Cal.App.4th€1323,€1331€notes,€questions€from€a€deliberating€jury€ð ðcan€presentÐ @  Ða€court€with€particularly€vexing€challenges€.€.€.ðð,€and€the€trial€court€must€weigh€the€ð ður‚gency€toÏrespond€with€alacrity€.€.€.€against€the€need€for€precision€in€drafting€replies€that€are€accurate,Ïresponsive,€and€balanced.ðð€€The€trial€courtððs€duty€to€respond€requires€that€the€court€ð ðdo€more€thanÏfiguratively€throw€up€its€hands€and€tell€the€jury€it€cannot€help.€It€must€consider€how€it€can€best€aidÏthe€jury€and€decide€whether€further€explanation€is€desirable,€or€whether€the€reiteration€of€previouslyÏgiven€instructions€will€suffice.ðð€(òòIbidóó.)Ð à0  Ðñ…*ñÌñ…*ñà  àòòThompkinsóó€teaches€that€the€typical€trial€court€response,€taking€the€easy€way€out€andÐ À Ðreiterating€instructions€already€given,€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔthough€ð ðhaving€the€virtue€of€simplicity€.€.€.ðð,€will€often€beÐ ° Ðð ðinadequate€.€.€.€ð ð€[and]€will€suggest[]€that€the€court€failed€to€consider€what€was€motivating€the€juryððsÏquestions.ðð€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòThompkinsóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€pp.€250„251.)€€Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïüÞ#Ôà p àMisinstruction,€or€failure€to€giveÐ à Ðrequired€instructions€in€response€to€a€deliberating€juryððs€question€can€strongly€enhance€the€argumentÏthat€the€error€was€not€harmless.€As€òòThompkinsóó€explains,Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔòò€óóð ðthere€is€no€category€of€instructional€errorÐ pÀ Ðmore€prejudi‚cial€than€when€the€trial€judge€makes€a€mistake€in€responding€to€a€juryððs€inquiry€duringÏdelibera‚tions.ðð€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€252„253.)€€With€most€instructional€error,€our€job€as€counsel€on€appeal€isÐ P  Ðto€comb€the€record€to€see€if€there€are€indications€whether€a€particular€error€could€have€effected€theÏjuryððs€deliberations€and€verdict;€but€in€cases€involving€inadequate€or€improper€instructions€inÏresponse€to€a€deliberating€juryððs€query,€it€is€transparently€obvious€by€the€nature€of€the€error€itself€thatÏthe€jury€had€zeroed€in€on€the€issue€in€question,€and€there€is€thus€an€overwhelming€inference€that€the€Ïfaulty,€erroneous,€or€inadequate€instructions€from€the€trial€court€improperly€influenced€the€juryððsÏverdict.Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïBá#ÔÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔ€Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïÊä#ÔÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔÐ ð@ Ðñ†*ñÌñ†*ñà  àI€have€attached€a€sample€argument€in€sex€crime€case€involving€a€juryððs€query€about€aidingÏand€abetting€culpability.€(See€Sample€Brief€No.€2.)Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ï å#ÔÐ À! ÐÌIV.€€ò òLesser€Included€Instructions.ó óÐ  #ð! ÐÌà  àIn€a€case€with€weak€or€equivocal€proof€of€required€elements€in€a€sex€crime€ð!ð€e.g.,€of€theÏforce/duress/menace/threats€element,€or€of€penetration€ð!ð€it€will€sometimes€be€difficult€or€impossibleÏto€put€together€either€a€winning€sufficiency€claim€or€successful€instructional€error€argument.€€WithÏsuch€facts,€the€next€best€recourse€will€often€be€an€argument€of€reversible€error€for€failure€to€suaÏsponte€give€required€instructions€on€lesser€included€offenses,€or€ð ðLIOsðð€as€we€like€to€call€them€forÏshort.€ÌñŒ*ññŠ*ñÌñŠ*ññŒ*ññŠ*ññŠ*ññŒ*ññŠ*ñÌñŠ*ññŒ*ñÌà  àA.€€ò òThe€Rules€to€the€LIO€Game.ó óÐ ,`'* Їñ‹*ññ‡*ñÌñ‡*ññ‹*ñà  àI€will€assume€that€most€of€this€is€already€known€to€most€folks€reading€this,€or€will€be€coveredÏin€the€homicide€materials.€€So,€I€will€go€through€this€quickly.Ìñˆ*ñÌñˆ*ñà  àWe€all€know€the€òòBrevermanóó„òòBirksóó€saga.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€A€couple€years€back€we€were€all€worried€aboutÐ €Ð Ðreview€grants€by€the€state€supreme€court€in€òòBrevermanóó€and€òòBirksóówhich€appeared€to€respectivelyÐ pÀ Ðthreaten€the€long„settled€requirement€that€judges€sua€sponte€instruct€on€lesser€included€offensesÏshown€by€the€evidence,€and€the€more€recent€rule€of€òòÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔPeopleóó€v.€òòGeigeróó€(1984)€35€Cal.3d€510Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïŸë#Ô€requiringÐ P   Ða€judge€to€instruct€on€lesser€related€(and€not€included)€offenses€(ð ðLROsðð)€upon€request.€€We€lost€twoÏthirds€of€the€battle.€€In€òòBirksóó€the€court€obliterated€the€òòGeigeróó„created€right€to€requested€instructionsÐ 0 € Ðon€related„but„not„included€crimes;€however,€the€same€court,€on€the€same€day,€reaffirmed€inÏòòBrevermanóó€the€right€to€instructions€on€lesser€included€crimes,€but€deprived€us€of€our€cherishedÐ `  ÐòòSedenoóó€standard€of€all„but€per€se€reversal,€leaving€us€with€the€weak€òòWatsonóó€harmless€error€test.׃ €×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð P  Ðà  àThe€loss€of€access€to€alternative€verdicts€on€lesser„related€crimes€is€damaging€in€the€sexÏcrime€arena,€where€many€of€the€crimes€lack€meaningful€included€offenses€when€there€is€a€failure€toÏprove€a€required€element.€€However,€we€still€have€lesser„includeds€to€kick€around,€and€can€oftenÏmake€good€use€of€this€rule,€even€with€the€relaxed€prejudice€test.€€Also,€as€noted€briefly€below,€thereÏremain€some€creative€strategies€for€attempting€to€federalize€LIO€instructional€error€and€for€arguingÏfor€a€right€to€LRO€instructions€under€the€rubric€of€instructions€on€the€ð ðdefense€theory€of€the€case.ððÌÌà  à1.€€ò òThe€Two€Starting€RulesÐ €Ð ÐÌà  àó óThe€beginning€question:€what€is€a€lesser€included€offense?€€The€simple€and€settled€responseÐ `° Ðis€that€there€are€two€answers,€equally€valid.€€First€under€the€ð ðstatutory€elementsðð€test,€a€lesser€offenseÏis€necessarily€included€in€a€greater€one€is€ð ðif€the€greater€statutory€offense€cannot€be€committedÏwithout€committing€the€lesser€because€all€of€the€elements€of€the€lesser€offense€are€included€in€theÏelements€of€the€greater.€.€.€.ðð€(òòÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔPeopleóó€v.€òòClarkóó€(1990)€50€Cal.3d€583,€636.)€€Second,€Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïPó#Ôunder€theÐ  p Ðð ðpleadingsðð€test,€a€crime€is€included€ð ðif€the€charging€allegations€of€the€accusatory€pleading€includeÏlanguage€describing€it€in€such€a€way€that€if€committed€in€that€manner€the€lesser€offense€mustÏnecessarily€be€committed.ðð€ò òó ó(òòIbidóó.)€€Ð ð@ Ðñ‰*ñÌñ‰*ñà  àIn€the€easy€cases,€the€statutory€elements€test€will€suffice.€€A€nonforcible€lewd€act€with€a€childÏ(ðð€288(a))€is€clearly€included€in€a€forcible€lewd€act€(ðð€288(b)).€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòWardóó€(1986)€188Ð À! ÐCal.App.3d€459,€470-472.)€€But€the€demise€of€the€LRO€instructions€requires€us€to€creatively€applyÏthe€pleadings€test€to€the€unique€facts€of€a€particular€case,€to€try€to€fit€certain€crimes€within€the€LIOÏrubric.€€For€example,€statutory€rape€(ðð€261.5)€is€not€necessarily€included€in€the€statutory€elementsÏof€the€crime€of€forcible€rape€because€you€can,€of€course,€commit€the€greater€crime€withoutÏcommitting€the€lesser€by€raping€someone€over€the€age€of€18.€(See€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòMonteroóó€(1986)€185Ð p&À!$ ÐCal.App.3d€415,€433.)€€However,€if€the€pleading€in€your€case€contains€allegations€indicating€that€theÏvictim€named€in€the€charged€forcible€rape€was€under€the€age€of€18,€you€may€be€able€to€make€out€anÏargument€that€statutory€rape€is€included€under€the€pleadings€test.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð à Ðñ*ñÌñ*ñà  àThe€second€question€is,€assuming€we€can€show€the€charged€crime€has€a€lesser€includedÏoffense€subsumed€within€it€under€either€test,€under€what€factual€scenario€is€a€court€obligated€toÏinstruct?€€Here€too€the€rule€is€well€settled€(though€frequently€ignored€in€unpublished€appellateÏopinions,€at€least€in€my€anecdotal€experience).€€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔThe€court€must€instruct€on€a€lesser€included€offenseÐ @  Ðð ðwhen€there€is€evidence€from€which€a€jury€composed€of€reasonable€persons€could€conclude€theÏdefendant€was€guilty€of€the€lesser€crime.ðð€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòGlennóó€(1991)€229€Cal.App.3d€1461,€1465,Ð  p  Ðciting€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòWickershamóó€(1982)€32€Cal.3d€307,€Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïÞú#ÔÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔ325.)€€The€standard€for€determining€whetherÐ `  Ðthere€is€sufficient€proof€favors€the€defendant,€at€least€in€theory:ÌÌÔ#†X¾ïXXX¾ï‡ü#Ôà8  àIn€making€the€determination€whether€to€instruct€on€a€lesser€included€offense,€theÐ à0  Ðð ðtrial€court€should€not€.€.€.€measure€the€substantiality€of€the€evidence€by€undertakingÏto€weigh€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€a€task€exclusively€relegated€to€the€jury.ððÏ(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòFlannelóó€[(1979)€òòóó25€Cal.3d€668,]€.€.€.€684.)€€ð ððð[T]he€fact€that€the€evidenceÐ ° Ðmay€not€be€of€a€character€to€inspire€belief€does€not€authorize€the€refusal€of€anÏinstruction€based€thereon.ðððð€(òòIbidóó.,€quoting€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòCarmenóó€(1951)€36€Cal.2d€768,Ð à Ð773.)€€As€an€obvious€corollary,€if€the€evidence€is€minimal€and€insubstantial€the€courtÏneed€not€instruct€on€its€effect.€(òòIbidóó.;€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòKaurishóó€(1990)€52€Cal.3d€648,€696.)€Ð pÀ ÐòòAny€doubts€about€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€to€warrant€a€requested€instructionÐ `° Ðshould€be€resolved€in€favor€of€the€defendant.óó€(òòFlannelóó,€òòsupraóó,€25€Cal.3d€at€p.€685.)ÐP Ð Ð  ÐÌ(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòGlennóó,€òòsupraóó,€ellipses€in€òòGlennóó,€emphasis€added€to€make€a€point.)€€The€upshot€of€thisÐ 0€ Ðstandard€is€that€your€clientððs€testimony€that€there€was€no€force,€or€no€penetration,€is€good€enoughÏto€require€instruction€on€a€lesser€crime,€even€if€the€trial€judge€doesnððt€believe€a€word€he€says.€€ThisÏpoint€needs€to€be€hammered€home,€as€it€is€frequently€lost€on€appellate€courts€and€the€deputyÏattorneys€general€who€ghost„write€their€opinions,€who€will€often€find€a€failure€to€instruct€based€onÏthe€absence€of€credible€evidence,€reasoning€with€perfect€circular€logic€that€since€the€jury€convictedÏyour€client,€they€obviously€didnððt€believe€a€word€he€said.€€Donððt€let€them€get€away€with€it!ÌñŽ*ñÌñŽ*ñà  àThe€other€point€as€to€the€sua€sponte€duty€is€the€unique€one€that€instructions€on€LIOððs€areÐ °"  Ðrequired€without€a€request€from€the€defense,€even€if€a€conviction€on€the€lesser€crime€is€inconsistentÏwith€the€defense€put€forward€at€trial,€and€even€when€the€defense€specifically€requests€that€suchÏinstruction€not€be€given.€(See€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòBartonóó€(1995)€12€Cal.4th€186,€195„201,€reaffirming€òòSedenoóóÐ à Ðon€this€point.)׃;×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïԀР€Ð Ðñ*ñÌñ*ñà  àThis€last€point€is€an€important€one€to€keep€in€mind.€€Take,€for€example,€a€fairly€typical€288(b)Ïprosecution,€with€less„than€overwhelming€evidence€of€force,€duress,€menace€or€threats.€€GenerallyÏspeaking,€the€defense€presented€in€such€cases€will€be€that€the€acts€described€by€the€child€never€tookÏplace,€and€that€the€victim€is€making€it€all€up€for€one€reason€or€another.€€If€the€evidence€presented€byÏthe€prosecution€as€to€the€aggravating€elements€is€such€that€a€reasonable€jury€could€find€the€defendantÏguilty€of€the€lesser€crime€of€nonforcible€lewd€acts€under€section€288(a),€but€have€reasonable€doubtÏas€to€the€greater€crime,€the€court€has€a€sua€sponte€duty€to€instruct€on€this€lesser€even€though€theÏdefense€presented€is€entirely€inconsistent€with€the€defendantððs€conviction€on€this€lesser€crime.Ìñ*ñÌñ*ñà  àThe€lesson€here€is€an€important€one€for€the€appellate€practitioner:€when€looking€for€LIOððs,Ïdonððt€be€limited€by€defenses€or€arguments€presented€at€trial,€but€look€for€them€between€the€cracksÏin€the€prosecutionððs€case.ÌÔ#†X¾ïXXX¾ï²#ÔÌà  àB.€€ò òWhat€are€the€LIOs€in€Sex€Crime€Cases?€€ó óÐ à ÐÌà  àWhat€follows€is€a€summary€of€several€accepted€sex„crime€LIOs,€with€a€couple€suggestionsÏfor€some€novel€arguments.€€There€is€no€effort€to€be€exhaustive.€€I€highly€recommend€FORECITE€asÏa€compendium€of€available€and€unavailable€lesser€included€crimes.€(See€F€LIO€VI(A)€ð ðLesserÏIncluded€Checklist.ðð)€€I€also€strongly€recommend€that€you€approach€each€case€with€an€open€mindÏð!ð€where€thereððs€a€will,€and€facts€showing€something€other€than€an€overwhelming€case,€thereððs€aÏpossible€Ô_ÔLIOÔ_Ô.Ìñ‘*ñÌñ‘*ññ•*ñà  àñ•*ñà ` àñ“*ñà ` àñ“*ñ1.€€ò òAttemptó ó:€€An€attempt€to€commit€a€crime€is€always€a€lesser€included€of€the€greaterÐ P Ðcrime.€(See€ðð€1159,€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòVanderbiltóó€(1926)€190€Cal.€461,€464.)€€Clever€wags€may€want€toÐ ð@ Ðpersuade€you€that€attempt€isnððt€a€lesser€included,€because€it€requires€a€specific€intent€to€commit€theÏtarget€crime,€and€the€crime€itself€does€not.€To€quote€the€sage€Pat€Paulsen,€ð ðPoppycock!ðð€€AttemptÏis€a€lesser€included€crime€by€fiat€of€statute€and€case€law,€at€least€until€the€state€supreme€court€saysÏotherwise.€€However,€keep€in€mind€that€as€to€some€crimes,€such€as€assault,€there€òòisóó€no€attemptedÐ °"  Ðcrime,€and€thus€no€lesser€of€attempt€to€instruct€on.€(òòIn€re€James€M.óó€(1973)€9€Cal.3d€517,€521-522.)€Ð  #ð! ÐSimilarly,€itððs€hard€to€imagine€a€crime€such€as€attempted€continuous€sexual€abuse€of€a€child€underÏsection€288.5.Ìñ’*ñÌñ’*ñà  àIf€your€case€involves€any€kind€of€issue€as€to€whether€there€was€a€completed€actus€reus,Ïattempt€is€the€relevant€lesser.€€For€instance,€in€the€type€of€situation€discussed€above€under€sodomy,Ïwhere€there€is€weak€or€ambiguous€evidence€regarding€penetration,€attempted€sodomy€would€beÏavailable.׃0×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð P   Ðñ”*ñÌñ”*ñà  àHereððs€a€twist,€though:€is€there€such€a€thing€as€an€attempt€to€commit€an€ð ðaggravated€sexualÏassaultðð€of€a€child€under€section€269?€€This€would€depend€on€whether€that€provision€of€the€PenalÏCode€describes€a€ð ðsubstantive€crimeðð€or€is€just€a€ð ðpenalty€provision.ðð€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòBrightóó€(1996)€12Ð `  ÐCal.4th€652€[no€crime€of€ð ðattempted€first€degree€murderðð].)€€One€of€the€few€cases€interpreting€sectionÏ269€contains€analysis€strongly€suggesting€that€it€is€a€ð ðpenalty€provisionðð€and€not€a€substantive€crime.Ï(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòJiminezóó€(2000)€80€Cal.App.4th€286,€291€[ðð€269€ð ðincreases€penalties€for€enumeratedÐ à0  Ðsexual€offenses€.€.€.ðð€in€specified€circumstances,€indicating€Legislatureððs€intent€to€ð ðaggravateÏpunishment€for€forcible€sexual€offenses€.€.€.ðð€in€these€situations]€€Normally€our€side€will€want€toÏargue€that€there€is€no€such€lesser.€€For€example,€if€your€client€is€charged€with€a€269€based€on€theÏunderlying€crime€of€forcible€rape,€and€there€is€weak€evidence€of€penetration,€you€will€want€to€argueÏthat€the€lesser€included€crime€is€attempted€rape,€not€attempted€aggravated€sexual€assault,€since€aÏreduction€to€that€charge€would€involve€a€far€lower€sentence.€ÌÌà  àà ` à2.€€ò òOther€Sex€Crime€Ô_ÔLIOsÔ_Ô:ó óÐ `° ÐÌà  àa.€€ò òKidnap€>€False€Imprisonmentó ó:€€False€imprisonment€is€a€lesser€of€simple€or€aggravatedÐ @ Ðkidnaping.€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòMaganaóó€(1991)€230€Cal.App.3d€1117,€1120.)€€If€you€have€a€case€where€simpleÐ 0€ Ðkidnap€under€section€207€or€kidnap€for€rape€is€charged€under€section€209,€and€the€evidence€of€forcedÏmovement€that€is€substantial€and/or€increases€risk€of€harm€is€weak€(i.e.,€asportation€wasnððt€far€orÏrisk„enhancing)€or€equivocal€(the€evidence€indicates€the€victim€may€have€voluntarily€got€into€theÏdefendantððs€car€and€traveled€with€him),€argue€error€in€failing€to€give€instruction€on€the€LIO€of€falseÏimprisonment.Ìñ–*ñÌñ–*ñà  àb.€€ò òRape€>€Assault€with€Intent€to€Commit€Rape€>€Attempted€Rapeó ó:€€In€a€forcible€rapeÐ À! Ðcharge€where€evidence€of€penetration€is€weak€as€to€one€or€all€counts,€argue€LIO€error€in€failing€toÏinstruct€on€the€lesser€crimes€of€assault€with€intent€to€commit€rape€(ðð€220,€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòGhentóó€(1987)Ð  #ð! Ð43€Cal.3d€739,€756)€or€attempted€rape.€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòGarciaóó€(1985)€166€Cal.App.3d€1056,€1067-1069.)€Ð $à" ÐYes,€I€know€the€reasoning€that€a€220€is€a€lesser€included€of€rape€is€suspect,€since€the€logic€of€itsÏrequired€analysis€ð!ð€that€every€forcible€rape€necessarily€includes€an€act€of€assault€ð!ð€would€also€meanÐ p&À!$ Ðthat€there€is€no€difference€between€an€attempted€rape€and€an€assault€with€an€attempt€to€commit€rape.€ÏBut€if€the€Lucas€court€says€itððs€an€LIO,€then€itððs€an€LIO,€at€least€until€the€George€court€saysÏotherwise.€Ìñ—*ñÌñ—*ñà  àOf€course,€if€the€charged€crime€is€a€section€220€assault€with€intent€to€commit€rape€or€oralÏcopulation,€you€should€argue€that€attempted€rape€or€attempted€oral€copulation€is€a€required€lesser.Ï(See€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòCarapelióó€(1988)€201€Cal.App.3d€589,€595€[rape];€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòSaundersóó€(1991)€232Ð P   ÐCal.App.3d€1592,€1598€[oral€copulation].)€€Ìñ˜*ñÌñ˜*ñà  àc.€€ò òRape€>€or€òòð»ðóó€Statutory€Rapeó ó:€€As€noted€above,€if€consent€is€the€defense€in€a€rape€chargeÐ  p  Ðof€a€victim€between€the€ages€of€14€and€17,€and€the€age€of€the€victim€is€part€of€the€accusatoryÏpleadings,€argue€error€in€failing€to€sua€sponte€instruct€on€statutory€rape€(See€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòCollinsóó€(1960)Ð 0€  Ð54€Cal.2d€57,€59-60),€but€if€there€is€no€such€allegation€in€the€pleadings,€you€are€out€of€luck.€(òòPeopleóóÐ  p  Ðv.€òòGutierrezóó€(1982)€137€Cal.App.3d€542,€547-548.)׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð `  Ðñ™*ñÌñ™*ñà  àd.€€ò òContinuous€Sexual€Abuse€of€Child€(ðð€288.5)€€>€or€òòð»ðóó€Lewd€Conduct€with€a€Child€(ððÐ ð@ Ð288(a))ó ó:€€Section€288.5€is€a€unique€crime,€since€it€requires,€as€elements€of€its€commission,€òòeitheróó€theÐ ` Ðcommission€of€three€or€more€lewd€acts€with€a€child€under€section€288€or€three€or€more€acts€ofÏð ðsubstantial€sexual€conductðð€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔas€described€in€section€1203.066Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ï¶$#Ô€(a€probation€ineligibility€provision)Ð ð@ Ðwithin€a€prescribed€period.€€Thus,€on€the€bare€allegation€of€a€commission€of€a€violation€of€sectionÏ288.5,€your€argument€that€a€nonforcible€lewd€act€under€section€288(a)€is€a€lesser€included€crime€willÏfail,€since€you€can€commit€the€greater€crime€by€means€of€the€substantial€sexual€conduct€route,€whichÏwould€not€be€a€violation€of€section€288(a).€(See€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔòòPeopleóó€v.€òòAvinaóó€(1993)€14€Cal.App.4th€1303,€1313„Ð ° Ð1314.)€Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ï³&#Ô€€However,€you€still€may€have€an€argument€that€section€288(a)€is€a€lesser€under€the€pleadingsÐ  ð Ðtest,€if€the€prosecutor,€as€sometimes€happens,€alleges€specific€acts€of€violating€section€288(a)€in€theÏaccusatory€pleading.׃!`×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð €Ð Ðñš*ñÌñš*ñà  àI€had€a€case€once€where€there€was€weak€evidence€of€the€required€number€of€acts€with€lewdÏintent,€a€substantial€showing€that€the€jury€was€having€a€very€hard€time€convicting€under€sectionÏ288.5,€but€no€288(a)€lesser€for€them€to€fall€back€on.€€While€there€was€no€specification€of€sectionÏ288(a)€in€the€accusatory€pleading,€the€prosecutor€in€that€case€had€specifically€elected€in€argumentÏand€via€instructions€to€proceed€solely€on€the€theory€that€the€underlying€acts€were€violations€ofÏsection€288(a),€and€not€acts€of€substantial€sexual€contact.€€In€that€case,€I€tried€to€argue€my€wayÏaround€the€strict€pleadings€requirement,€contending€that€the€prosecutorððs€election€effected€an€impliedÐ $P! Ðamendment€of€the€accusatory€pleadings€that€made€section€288(a)€a€lesser€included€to€section€288.5.€ÏThe€Kline„less€panel€of€Division€Two€of€the€First€District€didnððt€buy€my€argument,€but€I€think€it€wasÏcorrect,€not€to€mention€extremely€clever.€€So,€I€have€attached€the€sample€briefing€of€this€issue.€(SeeÏSample€Brief€No.€3.)ÌÌà  àC.€€à ` àò òArguing€Harmless€Error.ó ó€€Ð ` ° ÐÌà  àThe€sample€briefing€argues€both€that€the€error€was€not€harmless€under€the€òòWatsonóó€testÐ @  Ðadopted€in€òòBrevermanóó,€but€also€recasts€the€error€as€violative€of€federal€due€process€under€òòÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔClemonsóóÐ 0 € Ðv.€òòMississippióó€(1990)€494€U.S.€738,€746Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïú-#Ô,€thus€requiring€òòChapmanóó€analysis.€In€all€LIO€cases,€IÐ  p  Ðsuggest€that€you€adopt€such€arguments:€assume€that€the€California€courts€will€give€you€òòWatsonóó€only,Ð `  Ðsince€thatððs€all€òòBrevermanóó€requires;€but€federalize€the€LIO€argument€under€òòClemonsóóand€the€dueÐ P  Ðprocess€clause€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment,€since€this€will€at€least€arguably€turn€your€claim€intoÏone€cognizable€under€AEDPA€in€a€federal€habeas€petition.Ìñ›*ñÌñ›*ñà  àAs€with€all€prejudice€arguments,€in€your€òòWatsonóó€argument,€pull€out€all€the€stops:€utilize€allÐ À Ðof€the€record€to€demonstrate€how€close€the€facts€were€on€the€disputed€elements,€how€the€argumentsÏof€counsel€hotly€disputed€this€point,€and€why€the€juryððs€lengthy€deliberations,€queries€to€the€judge,Ïand/or€partial€acquittals€or€hangs€show€what€a€close€case€this€was€as€to€this€issue.€ÌÌV.à8  àò òAffirmative€Defense€Instructions€ó ó€€ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àA€close€cousin€of€the€lesser€included€instruction€requirement€is€the€rule€requiring€sua€sponteÏinstructions€on€ð ðaffirmative€defenses.ðð€(See€šòòÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔPeopleóó€v.€òòSedenoóó,€òòsupraóó,€10€Cal.3d€Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ï3#ÔšÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔat€p.€716šÔ#†X¾ïXXX¾ï”3#Ô.)€€The€suaÐ @ Ðsponte€duty€to€instruct€on€such€defenses€arises€in€a€slightly€more€narrow€category€of€situations€thanÏfor€LIOððs.€€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔSuch€a€duty€arises€ð ðonly€if€it€appears€that€the€defen‚dant€is€relying€on€such€a€defense,€orÐ  p Ðif€there€is€substan‚tial€evidence€supportive€of€such€a€defense€and€the€defense€is€not€incon‚sis‚tent€withÏthe€defendantððs€theory€of€the€case.ðð€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòSedenoóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€p.€716.)€Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïu4#ÔÐ P ÐÌà  àA.€€ò òWhat€is€an€affirmative€defense?€€ó óÐ à0 ÐÌà  àThe€answer€is€not€particularly€simple.€€There€are€two€such€types€of€defenses€ð!ð€those€whereÏthe€defendant€has€a€burden€to€prove€the€facts€establishing€the€defense€by€a€preponderance€ofÏevidence,€such€as€entrapment€(see,€e.g.,€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòBarrazaóó€(1979)€23€Cal.3d€675),€and€those€whereÐ  #ð! Ða€set€of€facts€related€to,€but€in€addition€of,€the€actus€reus€of€the€crime€negate€the€mens€rea€of€theÏcrime,€such€as€a€reasonable€but€mistaken€belief€in€consent€to€a€sexual€act,€where€the€jury€must€acquitÏif€it€has€reasonable€doubt€whether€criminal€intent€is€shown€in€light€of€the€defense€presented.€(SeeÏòòPeopleóó€v.€òòMayberryóó€(1975)€15€Cal.3d€143.)€€The€best€way€to€define€an€affirmative€defense,€and€thusÐ `'°"% Ðrequiring€sua€sponte€instruction,€is€to€contrast€it€to€a€ð ðpinpointðð€type€defense,€in€which€the€defendantÏseeks€to€draw€the€juryððs€attention€to€particular€facts€in€the€record,€such€as€intoxication,€which€negateÏcriminal€intent,€and€for€which€a€defense€request€is€necessary.€(See€òòÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔÔ‡ˆÉˆXX¾ïÔPeopleóó€v.€òòSailleóó€(1991)€54Ð 0*€%( ÐCal.3d€1103,€1119.)Ô#†ˆÉˆˆˆÉy:#ÔÔ#†X¾ïXˆˆɘ:#Ô€(More€on€this€type€of€defense€in€a€moment.)€€Ð 4+„&) Ðñœ*ñÐ 8,ˆ'* Ðñœ*ñà  àAll€right,€Iððm€going€to€tell€you€the€truth.€€Thereððs€no€good€definition€of€an€affirmativeÏdefense.€€Letððs€just€say€that€itððs€any€defense€in€which€a€particular€ð ðaffirmativeðð€set€of€facts€negatesÏguilt€for€some€accepted€policy€reason€ð!ð€the€right€to€defend€yourself,€the€non„culpability€of€acts€basedÏon€reasonable€mistakes,€etc.€€Of€course,€if€the€courts€have€classified€a€particular€defense€as€one€forÏwhich€sua€sponte€instruction€is€required€under€òòSedenoóó,€then€you€will€simply€argue€error€based€on€theÐ pÀ Ðauthority€of€these€cases.€€If€youððve€got€a€defense€which€is€not€classified,€simply€argue€by€analogyÏthat€it€matches€those€classified€as€affirmative€defenses.€€ÌÌà  àB.€€ò òWhat€Prejudice€Standard€Applies?€€ó óÐ 0 € ÐÌà  àSpeaking€of€unsettled€points,€no€one€really€knows€any€more€what€the€prejudice€standard€isÏfor€failure€to€instruct€on€an€affirmative€defense.€€Prior€to€òòBrevermanóó,€the€answer€was€clear:€theÐ P  ÐòòSedenoóó€test€applied,€compelling€reversal€unlessÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔ€ð ðit€is€shown€that€ððthe€factual€question€posed€by€theÐ ð@  Ðomitted€instruction€was€necessarily€resolved€adversely€to€the€defendant€under€other,€properly€givenÏinstructions.ðððð€Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïä?#Ô(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòStewartóó€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔ(1976)€16€Cal.3d€133,€Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïA#Ô141,€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔquoting€òòSedenoóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€p.€721;€seeÐ Ð  Ðalso€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòLemusóó€(1988)€203€Cal.App.3d€470,€478.)Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïlA#ÔÐ À Ðñ*ñÌñ*ñà  àThe€$64,000€question€is,€when€òòBrevermanóó€overruled€òòSedenoóó€as€to€LIO€instruc‚tional€error,Ð  ð Ðdid€it€implicitly€overrule€òòStewartóó€as€well?€€At€least€two€post„òòBrevermanóó€lower€appellate€cases€haveÐ à Ðeschewed€the€per€se€reversal€route€without€directly€holding€that€òòBrevermanóó€has€superseded€theÐ €Ð ÐòòStewart„Sedenoóó€standard.€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòElizeóó€(1999)€71€Cal.App.4th€605,€616;€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòGonzalesóóÐ pÀ Ð(1999)€74€Cal.App.4th€382,€391.)€€However,€you€should€argue€that€until€the€state€supreme€court€saysÏotherwise,€lower€appellate€courts€are€still€bound€by€the€òòStewartóó€rule,€and€must€follow€it.€(òòÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔAuto€EquityÐ P  ÐSales,€Inc.óó€v.€òòSuperior€Courtóó€(1962)€57€Cal.2d€450,€455.Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ï.E#Ô)€€Of€course,€while€making€this€point,€beÐ @ Ðsure€that€you€also€assume,€òòarguendoóó,€that€òòWatsonóó€applies,€and€put€together€a€strong€argument€thatÐ 0€ Ðthe€error€was€not€harmless€under€this€test.ÌÌà  àC.€€ò òFederalize,€Federalize,€Federalize.ó ó€€Ð P ÐÌà  àInstructional€error€involving€a€failure€to€instruct€on€defenses€ð!ð€whether€styled€ð ðaffirmativeððÏor€ð ðpinpointðð€ð!ð€should€always€be€argued€as€federal€constitutional€error.€€The€Ninth€Circuit€has€held,Ïin€a€series€of€cases,€that€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔa€criminal€defendant€is€entitled€under€the€Constitution€to€defense„requestedÐ À! Ðinstructions€on€a€primary€defense€theory€of€the€case€which€is€supported€by€the€evidence.€òòóóÔ#†X¾ïXXX¾ï H#Ô(See€òòÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔUnitedÐ °"  ÐStatesóó€v.€òòEscobar€de€Brightóó€Ô‡ˆÉˆXX¾ïÔ(9th€Cir.€1984)Ô#†X¾ïXˆˆÉvI#ÔÔ#†X¾ïXXX¾ïI#ÔÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔ€742€F.2d€1196,€1201„1202;€òòBashoróó€v.€òòRisleyóó€Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïêI#ÔšÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔÔ‡ˆÉˆXX¾ïÔ(9th€Cir.Ð  #ð! Ð1984)šÔ#†ˆÉˆˆˆÉeJ#ÔÔ#†X¾ïXˆˆÉ„J#ÔÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔÔ‡ˆÉˆXX¾ïÔ€730€F.2d€1228šÔ#†ˆÉˆˆˆÉ K#ÔÔ#†X¾ïXˆˆÉ,K#ÔÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔ,€1240;€and€òòCondeóó€v.€òòHenryóó€(9th€Cir.€1999)Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ï K#ÔÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔ€198€F.3d€734,€739.)€€Of€course,Ð ¤$ô" Ðafter€Ô_ÔAEDPAÔ_Ô,€citation€of€Ninth€Circuit€authority€is€inadequate,€and€there€is€arguably€no€direct€U.S.ÏSupreme€Court€authority€on€this€point.€€However,€òòCondeóó€was€an€AEDPAòò€óócase€which€held€that€thisÐ ˜&è!$ Ðright€derives€from€U.S.€Supreme€Court€authority,€and€the€Ninth€Circuit€is€where€all€our€cases€areÏgoing.€€So,€raise€and€preserve€this€issue,€and€put€something€like€the€following€paragraph€into€yourÏarguments€raising€issues€of€instructional€error€concerning€a€defense€theory€of€the€case.ÌÌà8  àA€criminal€defendant€is€entitled€under€the€Constitution€to€defense„requestedÏinstructions€on€a€primary€defense€theory€of€the€case€which€is€supported€by€theÐ 8,ˆ'* Ðevidence.€(òòÔ‡ˆÉˆXX¾ïÔMathewsóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó€(1988)€485€U.S.€58,€63„64Ô#†X¾ïXˆˆÉYO#ÔÔ#†X¾ïXXX¾ïL#ÔÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔ;€see€also€òòUnitedÐ ° ÐStatesóó€v.€òòEscobar€de€Brightóó,€òòsupraóó,€742€F.2d€at€1201„1202;€òòBashoróó€v.€òòRisleyóó,€òòsupraóó,Ð ´ Ð730€F.2d€at€1240;€and€òòCondeóó€v.€òòHenryóó,€òòsupraóó,€198€F.3d€at€p.€739.)€€Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïùO#ÔÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔThis€principleÐ ¤ô Ðderives€from€the€due€process€require‚ment€of€proof€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€of€eachÏof€the€elements€of€a€charged€crime€(òòIn€re€Winshipóó€(1970)Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïBQ#ÔÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔ€397€U.S.€358Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ï:R#ÔÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔ),€and€from€theÐ „Ô Ðgeneral€rule€from€the€Supreme€Court€that€habeas€relief€is€available€when€anÏerroneous€instruction€so€infects€the€entire€trial€that€the€resulting€conviction€violatesÏdue€process.€(òòEstelleóó€v.€òòMcGuireóó€(1991)Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ï‰R#ÔÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔ€502€U.S.€62,€72;€òòHendricksóó€v.€òòVasquezóó€(9thÐ T ¤ ÐCir.€1992)Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïÇS#ÔÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔ€974€F.2d€1099,€1106.)ÐD ”Ð Ð  ÐÔ#†X¾ïXXX¾ï_T#ÔÌI€promise€you€that€this€magical€paragraph€will€get€you€over€the€AEDPA€hump,€or€will€at€least€getÏyou€an€order€to€show€cause€in€federal€district€court.€€Well,€itððs€worked€for€me€so€far,€anyway.¼à  àÌà  àD.à8 ` àò òThe€òòMayberryóó€Defense€of€Reasonable€Belief€in€Consent,€ItsÐ ôD  ÐLimitation€in€òòWilliamsóó€to€ð ðEquivocal€Conduct,ðð€and€a€DueÐ ä4  ÐProcess€Argument€Attacking€òòWilliamsóó.€€ó óÐÔ$` x` x ÐÌà  àAs€noted€above,€òòMayberryóó€established€that€in€sex€crimes€involving€adults,€a€reasonable,€goodÐ ´ Ðfaith€belief€that€the€alleged€victim€consented€to€the€acts€is€a€full€defense.€(òòMayberryóó,€òòsupraóó,€15€Cal.3dÐ ¤ô Ð143.)€€In€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòWilliamsóó€(1992)€4€Cal.4th€354,€the€Lucas€court€severely€limited€theÐ ”ä ÐòòMayberryóódefense,€holding,€over€a€fine€dissent€by€Justice€Mosk,€that€it€applies€only€when€the€defenseÐ „Ô Ðcomes€forward€with€evidence€which€shows€that€the€defendant€was€òòmistakenóó€in€his€belief€aboutÐ tÄ Ðconsent.€In€light€of€òòWilliamsóó,€òòMayberryóó€defense€instructions€are€no€longer€required€where,€as€inÐ d´ ÐòòWilliamsóó€itself,€the€defense€case€shows€that€the€victim€initiated€and€consented€to€the€sexual€acts,Ð T¤ Ðbecause€this€is€ð ðevidence€of€actual€consent,€not€reasonable€and€good€faith€mistake€as€to€consent.ððÏ(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€363.)€€Most€troubling,€after€òòWilliamsóó,€ð ða€defendant€must€adduce€evidence€of€the€victimððsÐ 4„ Ðòòequivocalóó€conduct€on€the€basis€of€which€he€erroneously€believed€there€was€consent.ðð€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€361.)Ð $t Ðñž*ñÌñž*ñà  àFORECITE€makes€a€strong€argument€that€this€additional€limitation€on€the€òòMayberryóó€defenseÐ T Ðis€unconstitutional.€(F€10.65€n2.)€€Previous€case€law€made€it€plain€that€conduct€by€the€alleged€victimÏwhich€òòunequivocallyóó€demonstrates€consent€provides€a€stronger€showing€in€support€of€the€defendantððsÐ ä 4 Ðreasonable€and€good€faith€belief€in€consent€than€equivocal€conduct.€(See€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòBurnhamóó€(1986)Ð Ô!$ Ð176€Cal.App.3d€1134,€1147.)€€This€was€a€sound€holding,€and€òòWilliamsóó€provides€no€logical€reasonÐ Ä"  Ðfor€departing€from€it.ÌñŸ*ñÌñŸ*ñà  àAn€alleged€victim€of€a€rape€could€reasonably€believe€she€was€not€consenting€to€such€an€act,Ïbut,€at€the€same€time,€give€indications€to€the€defendant€through€her€conduct€which,€to€him,Ïreasonably€òòand€without€equivocationóó€communicated€consent.€€In€such€a€case,€a€jury€would€be€hardÐ t'Ä"% Ðpressed€to€find€that€the€victim€had€ð ðactually€consented,ðð€and€exonerate€the€defendant€on€such€basis.€ÏOn€these€facts,€though,€the€jury€could€find€that€the€defendant€reasonably,€and€in€good€faith,€had€aÏmistaken€belief€that€the€victim€consented.€€€However,€the€òòWilliamsóó€requirement€of€ð ðequivocalÐ D*”%( Ðconductðð€would€mean€that€a€defendant€òòwould€not€even€be€entitled€toóó€a€òòMayberryóóinstruction€on€theseÐ 4+„&) Ðfacts.€€Thus,€the€defense€will€have€presented€evidence€which€negates€the€defendantððs€criminal€intent,Ð $,t'* Ðbut€would€be€precluded€from€raising€and€arguing€his€òòMayberryóó€defense€based€on€òòWilliamsóó.Ð ° Ðñ *ñÌñ *ñà  àAs€my€esteemed€colleague€Dallas€Sacher€wrote,€under€his€FORECITE€nom€de€plume,€ÌÌà8  àà ` à[T]he€due€process€clause€forbids€a€state€from€defining€its€criminal€laws€inÏsuch€a€way€as€to€offend€ð ðððsome€principle€of€justice€so€rooted€in€the€traditions€andÏconscience€of€our€people€as€to€be€ranked€as€fundamental.ðð€[Citation].ðð€(òòMcMillanóó€v.Ð P   ÐòòPennsylvaniaóó€(1986)€477€U.S.€79,€85.)€€Thus,€due€process€is€violated€if€a€state€usesÐ @  Ðð ða€freakish€definition€.€.€.€[which]€finds€no€analogue€in€history€or€the€criminal€law€orÏother€jurisdictions€.€.€.€.ðð€(òòSchadóó€v.€òòArizonaóó€(1991)€501€U.S.€624,€640€(plurality€opn.Ð  p  Ðof€Ô_ÔSouterÔ_Ô,€J.).)ñ¡*ñÐ Ð Ð  Ðñ¡*ñÌà8  àà ` à[T]he€ð ðequivocal€conductðð€limitation€certainly€qualifies€as€being€bothÏð ðfreakishðð€and€contrary€to€traditional€common€law.€Indeed€to€the€extent€that€theÏlimitation€is€truly€irrational,€it€cannot€be€countenanced€under€both€procedural€andÏsubstantive€due€process€principles.€(See,€e.g.,€òòGrayóó€v.€òòWhitmoreóó€(1971)€17Ð À ÐCal.App.3d€1,€21.)€€[ðð]€€[T]he€constitution€specifically€allows€a€defendant€to€presentÏrelevant€evidence€in€support€of€his€cause,€(òòRockóó€v.€òòArkansasóó€(1987)€483€U.S.€44,Ð  ð Ð55-56.)€€In€any€system€of€ordered€liberty,€a€defendant€must€have€the€right€to€have€theÏjury€consider€any€competent€evidence€offered€to€disprove€criminal€intent.€€OurÏtraditional€notions€of€fair€play€require€no€less.€(òòMcMillanóó€v.€òòPennsylvaniaóó,€òòsupraóó,€477Ð pÀ ÐU.S.€at€p.€85.)Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌ(F€10.65€n2,€citation€format€altered€to€conform€to€òòCalifornia€Manual€of€Styleóó.)Ð @ Ðñ¢*ñÌñ¢*ñà  àThus,€if€a€case€presents€itself€to€you€with€a€òòMayberryóó€defense,€but€there€is€no€evidence€ofÐ  p Ðòòequivocalóó€conduct€on€the€part€of€the€victim,€you€should€raise€and€federalize€the€claim€of€instructionalÐ ` Ðerror€based€on€the€above€reasoning.€€Of€course,€when€raised€as€federal€constitutional€error,€inÏviolation€of€due€process,€the€applicable€prejudice€standard€would€be€òòChapmanóó,€and€the€presence€ofÐ ð@ Ðunequivocal€evidence€of€consent,€combined€with€the€absence€of€any€way€the€jury€could€apply€suchÏfacts€to€exonerate€the€defendant,€will€likely€require€reversal.€ÌÌà  àE.à ` àò òOther€Sex€Crime€Affirmative€Defenses.ó ó€€Ð °"  ÐÌà  àHere€are€a€couple€of€other€affirmative€defenses€available€in€sex€crimes.ÌÌà  à1.€€ò òReasonable€belief€in€majority€of€sex€partner€in€statutory€rape€case.€ó ó(See€òòPeopleóó€v.Ð p&À!$ ÐòòHernandezóó€(1964)€61€Cal.2d€529,€535„536.)€€This€defense€also€applies€to€other€ð ðstatutoryðð€sexÐ `'°"% Ðcrimes€of€consented€sexual€conduct€ð!ð€sodomy,€oral€copulation,€and€digital€penetration€ð!ð€with€personsÏaged€16€and€17.€(CALJIC€No.€10.67,€Use€Note.)€€However,€it€has€always€been€found€inapplicableÏto€any€violation€of€section€288(a)€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòOlsenóó€(1984)€36€Cal.3d€638,€649),€and€has€recently€beenÐ 0*€%( Ðfound€equally€unavailing€in€the€crime€of€lewd€conduct€with€a€14€or€15€year€old€under€subdivisionÏ(c)€of€section€288.€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòPazóó€(2000)€80€Cal.App.4th€293.)€Ð ,`'* Ðà  à2.€€ò òAnother€òòMayberryóó€Defense€Applicable€to€the€crime€of€rape€by€intoxication.ó óÐ ° ÐSubdivision€(a)(3)€of€section€261provides€that€a€defendant€commits€the€crime€of€rape€by€intoxicationÏif€the€victimððs€incapacitating€level€of€intoxication€ð ðwas€known,€or€reasonably€should€have€beenÏknown€by€the€accused.ðð€€Therefore,€an€honest€and€reasonable€but€mistaken€belief€that€a€sexualÏpartner€is€not€too€intoxicated€to€give€legal€consent€negates€the€required€criminal€intent,€and€providesÏa€complete€defense€to€the€crime€of€rape€by€intoxication.€€(F€10.02€c,€citing€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòGiardinoóó€(2000)Ð ` ° Ð82€Cal.App.4th€454,€471.)ÌÌVI.€€ò òPinpoint€Instructionsó óÐ 0 € ÐÌà  àAs€discussed€above,€the€next€category€of€instructions€bearing€on€proof€of€the€elements€of€theÏcrime€are€the€so„called€ð ðpinpointðð€instructions,€a€rump€category€of€instructions€for€which€sua€sponteÏinstruction€is€not€required.€€ð ðSuch€instructions€relate€particular€facts€to€a€legal€issue€in€the€case€orÏððpinpointðð€the€crux€of€a€defendant's€case,€such€as€mistaken€identification€or€alibi.€.€.€.€[and]€areÏrequired€to€be€given€upon€request€when€there€is€evidence€supportive€of€the€theory.€.€.€.ðð€(òòPeopleóó€v.Ð Ð  ÐòòSailleóó€(1991)€54€Cal.3d€1103,€1119.)€€Common€examples€of€such€defenses€would€be€(1)€voluntaryÐ À Ðintoxication€to€negate€specific€intent€(òòibidóó.),€a€defense€which€could€apply€in€the€sex€crime€situationÐ ° Ðto€crimes€such€as€lewd€conduct€under€section€288;€and€(2)€inadvertent€touching€in€a€288(a)€charge,Ïwhich€FORECITE€argues€should€be€given€upon€request.€(See€F€10.41c.)Ìñ£*ñÌñ£*ñà  àYou€can€argue€instructional€error€if€a€request€for€such€instructions€has€been€made,€and€theÏrequested€instructions€are€legally€correct€and€non„argumentative.׃=×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€California€courts€are€applyingÐ `° Ðthe€òòWatsonóó€standard€to€a€refusal€to€give€instructions€pinpointing€a€defense€to€an€element€of€a€chargedÐ P  Ðcrime,€reasoning€that€this€merely€effects€the€defense€right€to€present€some€evidence,€and€not€the€rightÏto€present€a€particular€defense.€(See,€e.g.,€òòÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔPeopleóó€v.€òòHumphreyóó€(1996)€13€Cal.4th€1073,€1089Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïÓx#Ô.)€Ð 0€ ÐHowever,€you€should€federalize€this€issue€by€arguing€that€a€failure€to€instruct€on€intoxication,€or€ofÏa€misinstruction€that€intoxication€is€irrelevant,€deprives€the€defendant€of€consideration€by€the€juryÏof€the€fact€of€his€intoxication,€and€thus€obliterates€a€defense€permitted€by€California€law,€in€violationÏof€his€fundamental€right€to€present€a€defense.€(òòÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòSayetsittyóó€(9th€Cir.€1997)Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïÏz#Ô€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔ107€F.3dÐ ð@ Ð1405€[defendant€has€a€constitutional€right€to€have€the€jury€consider€defenses€permitted€underÏapplicable€law€to€negate€an€element€of€the€offense];€òòóósee€òòÔ#†X¾ïXXX¾ïF{#ÔCraneóó€v.€òòKentuckyÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔÔ‡ˆÉˆXX¾ïÔóó€(1986)€476€U.S.€683Ô#†X¾ïXˆˆÉ{|#Ô,Ð Ð  Ð687€Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ï\|#ÔÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔ.)Ð Ô!$ ÐÔ#†X¾ïXXX¾ï}#ÔÌVII.€€ò òCautionary€Instructions€and€ð ðUncharged€Crimeðð€Instructionsó ó.€€Ð ´#! ÐÌà  àA.€€ò òGenerally€Speakingó ó.€€Ð ”%ä # ÐÌà  àA€final€category€of€instructional€error€involves€instructions€which€caution€the€jury€againstÐ t'Ä"% Ðinappropriate€use€of€certain€potentially€prejudicial€evidence,€or€limit€the€juryððs€consideration€of€suchÏevidence.€€Here€there€is€something€of€a€hodgepodge€as€to€whether€instruction€is€required€sua€sponte,Ïor€a€request€is€needed€to€require€instruction.€€For€example,€if€your€client€in€a€rape€case€has€a€priorÏconviction,€a€cautionary€instruction€pursuant€to€CALJIC€2.23€may€be€required€sua€sponte€if€theÏprosecution€impeaches€his€credibility€with€the€fact€of€such€a€prior€conviction.€(See€òòPeopleóó€v.Ð pÀ ÐòòMayfieldóó€(1972)€23€Cal.App.3d€236,€245,€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòLomelióó€(1993)€19€Cal.€App.4th€649,€654„655;Ð ` ° Ðbut€see€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòKendrickóó€(1989)€211€Cal.App.3d€1273,€1278€[no€sua€sponte€duty].)€€Ð P   Ðñ¤*ñÌñ¤*ñà  àHowever,€if€the€same€prior€conviction€is€used€as€an€uncharged€crime€to€prove€intent€orÏcommon€plan€pursuant€to€Evidence€Code€section€1101(b),€a€cautionary€instruction€is€normally€notÏrequired€absent€a€request.€(òòÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔPeopleóó€v.€òòCollieóó€(1981)€30€Cal.3d€43,€63„64.)€€While€òòCollieóó€states€theÐ `  Ðgeneral€rule€that€there€is€no€sua€sponte€duty€to€give€other„crime€limiting€instructions,€it€alsoÏhypothesizes€an€exception€where€instruction€is€required€without€request€because€uncharged€evidenceÏis€a€crucial€part€of€the€prosecutionððs€case.€(òòIbidóó.)€€At€least€two€courts€have€found€that€such€anÐ à0  Ðinstruction€was€required€sua€sponte€in€sex€crime€cases.€(Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ï„‚#ÔòòPeopleóó€v.€òòWilloughbyóó€(1985)€164Ð Ð  ÐCal.App.3d€1054Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔ,€1067€and€Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïû„#ÔÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔòòPeopleóó€v.€òòNottinghamóó€(1985)€172€Cal.App.3d€484,€497.)€€Also,€keep€inÐ À Ðmind€a€related€principle,€namely€that€even€if€there€is€no€request€for€a€cautionary€instructionÏconcerning€other€crimes,€if€one€is€given,€a€court€must€give€a€correct€instruction,€and€the€failure€toÏrequest€a€corrected€version€does€not€preclude€a€challenge€to€the€courtððs€error€on€appeal.€(òòIbidóó.,€citingÐ à ÐòòPeopleóó€v.€òòKeyóó€(1984)€153€Cal.App.3d€888,€Ô‡ˆÉˆXX¾ïÔÔ#†ˆÉˆˆˆÉH…#ÔÔ‡ˆÉˆˆˆÉÔ899;€see€also€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòRubalcadoóó€(1922)€56Ð €Ð ÐCal.App.€440,€443„444Ô#†X¾ïXˆˆÉL‡#ÔÔ‡ˆÉˆXX¾ïÔ.)Ô#†ˆÉˆˆˆÉއ#ÔÔ‡ˆÉˆˆˆÉÔÔ#†X¾ïXˆˆÉ1ˆ#ÔÔ‡ˆÉˆXX¾ïÔÐ „Ô Ðñ¥*ñÌñ¥*ñà  àSua€sponte€instruction€is€also€required€for€another€category€of€cautionary€instructionÏin€sex€crime€cases,€when€the€prosecution€presents€evidence€of€ð ðrape€trauma€syndromeðð€orÏð ðchild€sexual€abuse€accommodation€syndromeðð€(CSAAS).€€In€such€cases,€the€trial€court€hasÏa€sua€sponte€duty€to€advise€the€jury,€along€the€lines€of€CALJIC€No.€10.64,€that€such€evidenceÏcanððt€be€considered€to€show€that€the€victim€is€telling€the€truth,€but€is€only€admissible€to€showÏthat€the€victimððs€reactions€are€not€inconsistent€with€rape€or€molestation.€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòBledsoeóóÐ  ð Ð(1984)€36€Cal.3d€236,€251€[rule€of€limited€admissibility]€and€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòHouseleyóó€(1992)€6Ð ¤ô ÐCal.App.4th€947€[sua€sponte€duty€to€instruct].)ÌÌÔ#†ˆÉˆˆˆÉuˆ#ÔÔ#†X¾ïXˆˆÉ·ˆ#Ôà  àB.à ` àò òPropensity€Instructions:€1108€issuesó ó.€€Ð °" ÐÌà  àà ` à1.€€ò òBurden„Reducing€Instructionsó ó.€€Ð $à! ÐÌà  àOnce€upon€a€time€there€was€a€hard€and€fast€rule€that€uncharged€crimes€could€sneak€into€a€caseÏfor€all€sorts€of€reasons,€but€could€never€be€used€to€show€a€propensity€to€commit€crime€or€a€criminalÏpredisposition.€(See.€e.g.€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔòòPeople€óóv.€òò€Garceauóó€(1993)€6€Cal.4th€140,€186.)€€Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïè#ÔAll€that€ended€whenÐ P( #% Ðâ âEvidence€Code€section€1108€was€enacted,€and€upheld€against€a€due€process€challenge€by€theÐ @)$& ÐCalifornia€Supreme€Court€in€òòÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔPeopleóó€v.€òòFalsettaóó€(1999)€21€Cal.4th€903Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ï%#Ô.׃>×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ° Ðâ âñ¦*ñÌñ¦*ñà  àA€much€more€fertile€area€for€appellate€challenge€arose€out€of€this€new€law€in€the€area€of€juryÏinstructions.€€Following€the€model€of€section€1101(b)€evidence,€DA€made„up€instructions,€and€theÏoriginal€CALJIC€instructions€on€uncharged€crime€propensity€evidence€directed€jurors€to€first€findÏthe€truth€of€the€ð ðpreliminary€factðð€of€the€uncharged€crimes€by€a€prepon‚derance€of€evidence,€and€thenÏallowed€them€to€infer,€in€a€two€step€process,€that€(a)€the€defendant€had€a€propensity€to€commit€sexÏcrimes,€and€(b)€then€infer€from€this€that€he€was€likely€to€commit,€and€did€commit€the€charged€crime.Ï(See€CALJIC€2.50.01€(6th€ed.€1996).)€€Sensing€that€the€DAððs€and€courts€had€unwittingly€handed€usÏan€unconstitutional€burden„reducing€instruction€on€a€silver€platter,€appellate€practitioners€pouncedÏin€for€the€kill.€€Ìñ§*ñÌñ§*ñà  àThe€results€were€rather€puzzling.€€A€pair€of€early€opinions€found€constitutional€error€requiringÏreversal,€but€were€then€depublished€by€the€state€supreme€court,€without€a€review€grant.€€Since€then,Ïnearly€every€court€in€the€state€has€weighed€in€on€this€issue,€with€a€virtually€even€split€as€to€whetherÏthe€instruction€is€an€improper€burden„reducer€or€just€a€typical€inartful€instruction€with€any€possibilityÏof€confusion€as€to€burden€of€proof€cured€by€other€instructions.€(Compare€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔòòPeopleóó€v.€òòVichroyóó€(1999)Ð ° Ð76€Cal.App.4th€92,€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòOrellanoóó€(2000)€79€Cal.App.4th€179,€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòJamesóó€(2000)€81Ð  ð ÐCal.App.4th€1343,€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòFrazieróó€(2000)€89€Cal.App.4th€30€and€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòYoungeróó€(2001)€84Ð à ÐCal.App.4th€1360€[itððs€unconstitutional!]€with€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòVan€Winkleóó€(1999)€75€Cal.App.4th€133,Ð €Ð ÐòòPeopleóó€v.€òòOððNealóó€(2000)€78€Cal.€App.€4th€1065,€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòRegaladoóó€(2000)€78€Cal.€App.4th€1056,Ð pÀ ÐòòPeopleóó€v.€òòJeffriesóó€(2000)€83€Cal.App.4th€15,€22„25€and€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòWaplesóó€(2000)€79€Cal.App.4thÐ `° Ð1389€[itððs€OK].)€€Of€course,€under€Rule€29(a)(1),€the€supreme€court€is€supposed€to€grant€review€whenÏthere€is€this€kind€of€dispute€to€achieve€ð ðuniformity€of€decisionsðð;€but€the€supremes€have€continuedÏto€deny€review.Ìñ¨*ñÌñ¨*ñà  àThe€only€imaginable€reason€why€the€supreme€court€refuses€to€grant€review€is€that€the€courtÏmay€believe€that€the€1999€revision€to€CALJIC€No.€2.5Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïN•#ÔÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔ0.01€takes€care€of€the€burden€shifting€problem.€Ð P ÐThe€new€version€adds€the€following€paragraph:ÌÌà8  àHowever,€if€you€find€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€defendantÏcommitted€a€prior€sexual€offense,€that€is€not€sufficient€by€itself€to€prove€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€that€he€committed€the€charged€crime.€The€weight€and€significanceÏof€the€evidence,€if€any,€are€for€you€to€decide.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÔ#†X¾ïXXX¾ïû™#ÔÌ(CALJIC€No.€2.50.01€(1999€&€2001€rev.)€€Dicta€in€òòFalsettaóó€suggests€that€this€instruction€is€proper.Ð €%Ð # Ð(òòFalsettaóó,òòóó€òòÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔsupraóó,€21€Cal.4th€at€pp.€923„924.)Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïŽœ#Ôà À à€Recently€an€appellate€court€held€that€the€newÐ p&À!$ Ðinstruction€suffered€from€the€same€constitutional€infirmity€as€the€old,€concluding€that€the€addedÐ `'°"% Ðparagraph€was€ð ðinsufficient€to€clearly€delineate€for€the€jury€the€use€of€the€lesser€standard€of€proofÏto€establish€the€prior€sexual€offense€and€use€of€the€inference€to€be€drawn€therefrom€in€connectionÏwith€finding€appellant€guilty€of€the€present€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòRelifordóóÐ à Ð(2001)€93€Cal.€App.€4th€973,€978;€but€NOTE:€review€granted€Feb.€13,€2002,€case€not€citable,€so€slapÏmy€wrist€for€quoting€it€for€informational€purposes.)€€Ìñ©*ñÌñ©*ñà  àAs€indicated,€the€supreme€court€has€now,€at€last,€granted€review€to€consider€theÏconstitutionality€of€the€revised€CALJIC€2.50.01€instruction.€(òòIbidóó.)€€A€negative€result€seems€pre„Ð @  Ðordained€by€the€dicta€in€òòFalsettaóó.€€However,€a€constitutional€challenge€to€both€the€new€and€oldÐ 0 € Ðversions€of€CALJIC€2.50.01€as€a€burden€reducing€instruction€should€be€raised€in€all€cases€to€preserveÏthe€issue€for€federal€habeas€review.€€Ìñª*ñÌñª*ñà  àRather€than€lay€out€the€constitutional€argument€as€to€why€2.50.01€violates€due€process€byÏallowing€a€shortcut€to€conviction€based€on€evidence€and€inference€not€subject€to€the€reasonable€doubtÏrequirement,€I€have€attached€a€short€sample€brief€from€a€review€petition€I€recently€filed€as€to€theÏolder€version€of€2.50.01.€(See€Sample€Brief€No.€4.)ÌÌà  à2.€€ò òObligation€to€Instruct€That€2.50.01€Doesnððt€Apply€to€Nonsex€Crimes.ó ó€€Ð  ð ÐÌà  àA€rump€argument€which€has€never€been€addressed€in€a€published€opinion€is€whether€a€courtÏerrs€when€it€give€propensity€instructions€under€section€1108€but€fails€to€limit€the€applicability€of€theÏinstruction€to€sex€crimes.€€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔBy€its€plain€terms,€section€1108€only€applies€where€the€charged€crime€inÐ `° Ðquestion,€as€well€as€the€prior€crime,€is€one€which€fits€the€definition€of€a€ð ðsexual€offenseðð€inÏsubdivision€(d)(1).€(Evid.€Code€ðð€1108,€subd.€(a).)€€ñ«*ñÌñ«*ñÌñ¬*ñà  àñ¬*ñThe€pattern€instruction€tells€the€jury€that€they€can€consider€evidence€of€the€uncharged€crimeÏto€prove€the€defendantððs€propensity€to€commit€sex€crimes,€and€infer€from€this€intermediary€fact€thatÏð ðhe€was€likely€to€commit€and€did€commit€the€òòcrime€or€crimes€of€which€he€is€accusedóó.ðð€(CALJICÐ P Ð2.50.01.)€€Thus,€the€jury€is€likely€to€infer€from€this€that€the€uncharged€crime€and€propensity€evidenceÏapplies€to€all€crimes,€in€violation€of€section€1108ððs€express€limitations,€and€of€due€process€limits€onÏpropensity€evidence.Ìñ­*ñÌñ­*ñà  àÔ#†X¾ïXXX¾ïa¤#ÔAs€noted€above,€there€is€typically€no€sua€sponte€duty€to€give€limiting€instructions€without€aÐ °"  Ðrequest.€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòCollieóó,€òòsupraóó,€30€Cal.3d€at€pp.€63„64.)€€However,€where,€as€is€frequently€the€caseÐ  #ð! Ðin€the€1108€situation,€evidence,€argument€and€instructions€concerning€the€uncharged€crime€take€upÏa€substantial€part€of€the€case,€and€are€used€to€directly€prove€and€infer€the€defendantððs€guilt,€Ô‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔthe€òòCollieóóÐ €%Ð # Ðcaveat€applies€because€the€evidence€is€ð ðso€obviously€important€to€the€case€that€òòsua€sponteóó€instructionÐ p&À!$ Ðwould€be€needed€to€protect€the€defendant€from€his€counselððs€inadvertence€[in€failing€to€request€aÏlimiting€instruc‚tion].€.€..ðð€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòNottinghamóó,€òòsupraóó,€172€Cal.App.3d€at€p.€497,€quotingÐ P( #& ÐòòWilloughbyóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€p.€1067,€ellipses€in€òòÔ_ÔWilloughbyÔ_Ôóó.)Ð @)$' Ðñ®*ñÌñ®*ñà  àFurther,€òòKeyóó,€òòsupraóó,€153€Cal.App.3d€888Ô#†X¾ïXXX¾ïÆ©#ÔÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔ,€noted€above,€is€almost€directly€on€point.€€In€thatÐ  +p&) Ðcase,€the€trial€court€admitted€evidence€of€a€prior€sex€crime€under€section€1101,€and€gave€a€cautionaryÐ ,`'* Ðinstruc‚tion€under€CALJIC€2.50€which€failed€to€correctly€advise€the€jury€that€they€could€consider€theÏother€crime€evidence€only€to€rape€charges,€and€not€to€other€counts€to€which€the€evidence€was€notÏadmissible.€€The€reviewing€court€in€òòKeyóó€found€error,€despite€the€apparent€absence€of€any€request€forÐ à Ðsuch€a€limiting€instruction.€€First,€the€court€noted€that€ð ð[i]t€is€the€courtððs€obligation€to€insure€thatÏgiven€instructions€correctly€state€the€law€and€adequately€assist€the€jury€in€resolving€the€issues€thoseÏinstructions€address.ðð€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€898.)€€Then,€citing€as€authority€the€supreme€courtððs€decision€inÐ ` ° ÐòòPeopleóó€v.€òòRolloóó€(1977)€20€Cal.3d€109,€122„123€&€fn.€6,€which€required€the€trial€court€to€ð ðidentifyÐ P   Ðthe€precise€evidence€to€which€the€other€crimes€evidence€relatesðð€(òòKeyóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€p.€899),€the€courtÐ @  Ðin€òòKeyóó€concluded€that€there€was€a€ð ðcorollary€duty€on€the€trial€court€to€assist€jurors€by€telling€themÐ 0 € Ðthe€precise€issues€to€which€the€evidence€is€limited.ðð€(òòIbidóó.)€€Finally,€the€court,€citing€òòCollieóó,€notedÐ  p  Ðthat€while€there€is€normally€not€a€sua€sponte€duty€to€give€the€jurors€a€limiting€instruction€on€otherÏcrime€evidence,€ð ðwhen€a€trial€court€does€give€such€an€instruction€specifically€calling€their€attentionÏto€the€significance€of€this€substantially€prejudicial€evidence,€it€should€do€so€accurately.ðð€(òòIbidóó;€seeÐ ð@  Ðalso€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòRubalcadoóó€(1922)€56€Cal.App.€440,€443„444Ô‡ˆÉˆXX¾ïÔ.)Ð à0  Ðñ¯*ñÌñ¯*ñà  àGiven€the€tendency€of€courts€to€blindly€adhere€to€the€òòCollieóó€rule€of€ð ðno€request,€noÐ è8 Ðerror,ðð€you€should€raise,€as€a€backup,€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€in€failingÏto€request€an€instruction€limiting€the€propensity€instructions€to€the€charged€sex€crimes.€€ItððsÏimpossible€to€conceive€of€any€tactical€reason€for€not€wanting€to€limit€deadly€propensityÏevidence€to€the€crimes€to€which€section€1108€allows€it€to€be€considered,€given€the€Ô#†ˆÉˆˆˆÉe¬#ÔÔ#†X¾ïXˆˆɳ#ÔÔ‡ˆÉˆXX¾ïÔhighlyÐ øH Ðprejudicial€nature€of€such€evidence.€€Ô#†X¾ïXˆˆÉ¶#ÔÔ‡ˆÉˆXX¾ïÔWhere€counselððs€failure€to€take€a€particular€actionÐ üL Ðcannot€be€ð ðexplained€on€the€basis€of€acceptable€tactics€or€other€reason€which€brings€theÏconduct€within€the€range€of€reasonable€competence,ðð€the€failure€constitutes€ineffectiveÏassistance€as€a€matter€of€law.€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòCummingsóó€(1993)€4€Cal.4th€1233,€Ô#†X¾ïXˆˆÉ–¶#Ô1339;€see€òòPeopleóóÐ X Ðv.€òòGuizaróó€(1986)€180€Cal.App.3d€487,€Ô‡ˆÉˆXX¾ïÔ492.)šÔ#†X¾ïXˆˆɆ¸#ÔÐ  \ ÐÌà  àà ` à3.€€ò òError€in€Confusing€Instructions€Where€Priors€Admitted€under€More€thanÐ P ÐOne€Theoryó ó.€€Ð ð@ ÐÌà  àVery€often€when€uncharged€crime€evidence€is€admitted€under€section€1108,€it€may€also€comeÏin€under€section€1101(b)€to€show€common€plan,€intent,€identity,€or€to€negate€a€òòMayberryóó€defense.€Ð À! ÐThe€same€prior€may€also€come€in€for€impeachment€purposes.€€Rather€than€crafting€a€unifiedÏinstruction€which€deals€with€all€these€subjects,€what€normally€happens€is€that€the€court€gives€the€juryÏseveral€instructions€covering€the€same€evidence€from€different€angles,€each€of€which€containsÏlanguage€telling€the€jury€they€can€only€consider€the€evidence€of€the€prior€criminal€conduct€for€aÏspecific€purpose,€and€no€other.€€Some€effort€has€been€made€to€correct€this€in€recent€revisions,€whichÏcontain€language€to€the€effect€that€the€jury€not€consider€the€evidence€for€any€other€purpose€ð ðunlessÏinstructed€otherwise.€.€.€.ðð€(CALJIC€No.€2.50.01,€2001€rev.)Ìñ°*ñÌñ°*ñà  àWhere€instructions€contradict€each€other€in€this€manner,€consider€arguing€that€the€confusingÏlimiting€instructions€are€impossible€to€follow,€and€thus€so€vague€as€to€have€no€meaningful€limitingÏimpact.€€Ð ,`') ÐÔ‡X¾ïXXX¾ïÔÌÔ#†X¾ïXXX¾ïë½#ÔVIII.€€ò òSex€Registration€Instructionsó óÐ  ð ÐÌà  àI€know€what€youððre€thinking.€€The€sex€registration€laws,€and€violations€of€section€290,€areÏnot€really€sex€crimes,€and€issues€of€instructional€error€as€to€this€crime€donððt€really€fit€within€thisÏtopic.€€€But€consider€this:€€appeals€of€jury€tried€section€290€cases€are€compensated€at€$85€per€hourÏunder€the€guidelines;€and,€prosecutions€under€this€section€are€the€most€severe€version€of€collateralÏpunishment,€giving€our€clients€sentences€for€as€much€as€25€to€life€based€on€their€prior€crimes€andÏsome€petty€act€of€failing€to€update€registration.€€So,€consider€these€former€misdemeanors€as€sexÏcrimes€by€default.ÌÌà  àA.à ` àò òA€Sample€Instruction.ó óÐ P  ÐÌà  àIf€you€have€ever€sat€down€and€tried€to€read€Penal€Code€section€290,€you€probably€couldnððtÏfinish;€and€if€you€did,€you€couldnððt€possibly€remember€half€of€what€you€read.€€Itððs€one€of€the€longestÏstatutes€ever€written,€itððs€impossibly€complex€and€convoluted;€odds€are€that€by€the€time€you€finishedÏreading€it€the€Legislature€will€have€amended€it€two€or€three€times.€€Ìñ±*ñÌñ±*ñà  àTo€make€matters€worse,€you€can€peruse€CALJIC€until€the€cows€come€home,€but€will€not€findÏan€instruction€on€the€crime€of€failure€to€register€or€failure€to€notify€of€a€change€of€address€underÏsection€290.€€In€practice,€this€means€the€prosecutors€write€the€instructions€on€this€crime,€whichÏproduces€badly€written€instructions€that€tend€to€mix€and€match€statutory€language€and€case€law€toÏachieve€the€desired€result€of€conviction.€€You€should€review€such€instructions€carefully,€looking€bothÏto€the€significant€statutory€provisions€and€relevant€case€law,€and€identify€and€raise€your€ownÏinstructional€errors.Ìñ²*ñÌñ²*ñà  àFORECITE€has€put€together€a€sample€instruction€on€section€290.€(See€€F€18.56€b)€€It€appearsÏto€be€a€largely€accurate€description€of€the€elements€of€òòóóa€violation€of€section€290€based€on€anÐ P Ðòòinitialóófailure€to€register€within€5€days€of€coming€into€a€new€city€or€county,€or€after€being€releasedÐ ð@ Ðfrom€custody.€€In€my€view,€the€FORECITE€instruction€has€two€deficiencies.€€First,€it€does€notÏinclude€a€very€common€way€of€violating€the€statute,€a€failure,€under€subdivision€(f)€of€section€290,Ïto€notify€authorities€within€5€days€of€a€change€of€ð ðresidence€address€or€location.ðð€€Second,€theÏFORECITE€sample€i