Rape Intent in Kidnap Case Must Be Proven, Court Says

SAN FRANCISCO —  A jury must find that a kidnaper committed his crime for the purpose of rape before his sentence can be lengthened for such an act, the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday.

The justices said that such a purpose cannot simply be inferred later by a sentencing judge when it was neither expressly charged by the prosecution nor proved to the jury.

The court overturned a three-year term that was added to a seven-year sentence given to an Inyo County parolee convicted of the rape, assault and kidnaping of his longtime girlfriend and mother of his child.

Due process of law requires that a defendant be informed that he faces an additional penalty and must have a chance to refute the contention that his purpose in a kidnaping was to commit a sexual assault, the court said in an opinion by Justice John A. Arguelles.

The ruling resolved conflicting legal interpretations of a 1983 law authorizing increased penalties for convicted sex offenders.

Such added punishments, or “enhancements,” are common now in criminal law. Among other things, they provide longer terms for the use of a gun or for inflicting great bodily injury during a crime--both of which specifically require a charge and proof to the jury.

Last year, the Legislature amended the 1983 law to require the finding in sex offense-related kidnaping cases that now has been mandated by the court. Thus the impact of Thursday’s ruling will be limited to only those pending cases that arose before the law was revised, according to state Deputy Atty. Gen. Tim J. Nader.

In the case before the justices, James Hernandez of Big Pine was accused of a brutal assault in September, 1985, on a woman identified by the court as Marion M. Authorities said that the woman had accused Hernandez of several previous attacks but had declined to press charges.

According to testimony, an apparently intoxicated Hernandez entered Marion’s home and refused her request to leave. They argued and then struck each other. After calm returned, he directed her to go with him to the bedroom, but she resisted and fled.

The woman ran across the street to a neighbor’s home. But no one there responded to her screams, and Hernandez grabbed her by the wrist, took her back to her home, forced her to engage in intercourse and then urinated on her, she said.

Hernandez was found guilty by an Inyo County Superior Court jury. But it was not until his sentencing that the issue of an enhanced penalty was raised.

The defendant’s attorney argued that the additional three-year term could not be imposed because no proof had been presented to the jury that the kidnaping was committed for the purpose of rape. The prosecution responded that the crimes in themselves showed that was Hernandez’s purpose--and the trial judge agreed, lengthening Hernandez’ term from seven to 10 years. Last year, a state Court of Appeal in San Bernardino upheld the additional term, concluding that the purpose was evident from the nature of the underlying crimes, even without a specific charge and a finding by the jury.

But the state high court, in its reversal Thursday, said it was possible that the jury could have found that the defendant’s purpose in kidnaping his victim “was to beat her in retaliation for refusing to engage in sexual conduct, even though the seizure was followed thereafter by a sexual assault.”

In analyzing the 1983 law, the court acknowledged that the statute was ambiguous. But the justices said it was possible that the Legislature inadvertently neglected to specifically require a jury finding as it required in other laws authorizing sentencing enhancements.

In any event, the court said, under the Constitution, there must be an allegation and proof that the defendant committed a kidnaping for the purpose of rape before the additional penalty can be imposed.

“Due process requires that an accused be advised of the specific charges against him so that he may adequately prepare his defense,” Arguelles wrote.