GUILTY CA - Julio Morales charged with rape of sleeping woman, Cerritos, 2009

Reader

New Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2004
Messages
7,033
Reaction score
93
http://www.centurylink.net/news/read.php?id=19235863&ps=1011&cat=&cps=0&lang=en

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A California appeals court overturned the rape conviction of a man who pretended to be a sleeping woman's boyfriend, ruling, in part, Wednesday that an arcane law from 1872 doesn't protect unmarried women in such cases.

A panel of judges reversed the trial court's conviction of Julio Morales and remanded it for retrial, in a decision posted Wednesday from the Los Angeles-based court................

"Has the man committed rape? Because of historical anomalies in the law and the statutory definition of rape, the answer is no, even though, if the woman had been married and the man had impersonated her husband, the answer would be yes," Judge Thomas L. Willhite Jr. wrote in the court's decision............

The decision also urges the Legislature to examine the law.........

Strange case...I wish they had cited the law so we could read it...
 
Hey Cali, might be time to get rid of this law. smh

an arcane law from 1872 doesn't protect unmarried women
 
This is a moronic decision.

Of course the victim did not consent to Morales (the rapist), as Morales was portraying himself as someone else (the victim’s boyfriend). She consented to the boyfriend; NOT Morales. Therefore, this is a crime of rape.

These judges must have been born in 1872.
 
A little publicity helped get action:

California official urges law to stop rape by impersonators

http://news.yahoo.com/california-official-urges-law-stop-rape-impersonators-024008413.html

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - California's attorney general on Friday called on lawmakers to update the state's definition of sexual assault after appellate judges overturned a rape conviction on grounds that an obscure, 19th-century law fails to protect unmarried women when a rapist impersonates a lover.
 
From Reader's article directly above:

"The panel said it had no choice but to overturn the conviction because it could not be sure the jury convicted Morales based on sound legal reasons."

Whaaaat? I can't believe what I'm reading.

Perhaps the jury convicted on lack of consent.

I also wanted to point out this from the article:

"Morales was later arrested, convicted of rape and sentenced to three years in state prison - a sentence the appellate judges reluctantly overturned on Wednesday."

Three years? We don't take the crime of rape seriously enough. Being busted with crack cocaine gets you a longer prison sentence than the crime of rape. RIDICULOUS.
 
http://www.centurylink.net/news/read.php?id=19235863&ps=1011&cat=&cps=0&lang=en

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A California appeals court overturned the rape conviction of a man who pretended to be a sleeping woman's boyfriend, ruling, in part, Wednesday that an arcane law from 1872 doesn't protect unmarried women in such cases.

A panel of judges reversed the trial court's conviction of Julio Morales and remanded it for retrial, in a decision posted Wednesday from the Los Angeles-based court................

"Has the man committed rape? Because of historical anomalies in the law and the statutory definition of rape, the answer is no, even though, if the woman had been married and the man had impersonated her husband, the answer would be yes," Judge Thomas L. Willhite Jr. wrote in the court's decision............

The decision also urges the Legislature to examine the law.........

Strange case...I wish they had cited the law so we could read it...

I find this utterly disgusting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
126
Guests online
1,322
Total visitors
1,448

Forum statistics

Threads
591,797
Messages
17,959,016
Members
228,607
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top