Law fraud in the inducement laws in California and western perspectives

Fraud in Fact and Fraud in the Inducement LAWS IN CALIFORNIA AND WESTERN PERSPECTIVES

The California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District recently held in the case of People v. Julio Morales, that under the current state penal law, an individual who impersonates another for purposes of sexual intercourse cannot be guilty of rape. According to the Appellate Court, and the cases it cited, the only exception is where the individual impersonates the victim’s spouse. When news of the Court’s decision reached the public, the outrage was widespread and unanimous. On the surface, the Court’s decision - which distinguished between married and unmarried individuals - seemed arbitrary and blatantly unfair in the context of a rape. However, upon further analysis, it appears that the Court’s decision was supported by long standing legal principles. Specifically, in reaching its conclusion, the Court focused on whether the act at issue constituted fraud in fact versus fraud in the inducement. This paper discusses the facts as presented to the Morales Court, then analyzes the legal history of the fraud in fact versus fraud in inducement distinction, and concludes by discussing ways in which penal codes can be amended, so as to prevent future injustices from occurring.
Facts
In the early morning hours of February 21, 2009, the defendant Julio Morales, entered victim’s bedroom after victim’s boyfriend exited, and proceeded to physically touch and kiss victim (Jane Doe) while she was sleeping.Without truly revealing his identity, he then had sexual intercourse with Doe. Morales does not recall Doe ever trying to push him off or resisting sex because she seemingly kissed him back. However, Morales stopped because he felt like he was betraying his girlfriend. Doe’s story differs in that she claims attempting to stop him, but was unable to and defendant forcibly re-inserted his penis back into her. Doe again pushed him off and finally Morales stopped and ran out of the room. During the jury trial, the prosecution, referring to CRIMCAL No. 1003 jury instructions, argued that “A woman is unconscious of the nature of the act if she is unconscious or asleep or not aware that the act is occurring or not aware of the essential characteristics of the act because the perpetrator tricked, lied to, or concealed information from her.” After the trial, defendant Morales was convicted under penal code Section 261, subdivision (a)(4) Rape of an Unconscious Person, and was sentenced to at least three years. On appeal, Morales’s attorney argued that the jury instruction used by the prosecution was flawed, and that the case should be remanded for a new trial. Specifically, the issue dealt with the last portion of the jury charge which stated that the perpetrator “tricked, lied to, or concealed information from her.” Although the jury could have correctly convicted the defendant if they believed the victim was asleep or unconscious at ...