Defendants appealed their convictions in the Superior Court of Contra Costa County (California) for kidnapping and rape. Defendants argued that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on "consent" and should have granted their motion for mistrial based on references to lie detector tests made by prosecution witnesses. Defendant robber argued that he was denied his right to a speedy trial and a jury instruction on lesser included offenses.
Defendants' victim was kidnapped, then raped by defendants at their apartment and robbed by one of them. At trial, defendants were convicted of kidnapping and rape with defendant robber also being convicted of robbery. The court held that defendant robber was not prejudiced by any delay in being brought to trial because the witnesses he was unable to procure would not have provided relevant testimony, and the delay occurred before he was charged with an offense, when his speedy trial rights first arose. The Disability discrimination defenses held that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct on lesser included offenses to robbery where the evidence supported either robbery or innocence and not some lesser included offense. However, the court reversed defendants' convictions, holding that Cal. Jury Instructions - Criminal No. 1.23 likely confused the jury into believing that fraud negated any consent by victim. The court held that the trial court properly denied defendants' motion for mistrial based on passing references to lie detector tests taken by them. In addition, the trial court provided defendants the opportunity to renew the motions, but they neglected to do so.
Defendants' convictions for rape and kidnapping were reversed because an instruction may have confused the jury as to the effects of fraud on consent. As to defendant robber, the court held that speedy trial rights arose only when an offense was charged and that the trial court's failure to instruct on lesser-included offenses was not error in the absence of evidence of such offenses.
Defendant city mayor appealed a judgment from the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which convicted him of the crime of extortion, denied his motion for a new trial, and sentenced him to five years in prison.
Defendant was indicted for extortion on the theory that he conspired to refuse to issue restaurant licenses in order to compel the restaurant keepers to pay for their licenses. After the superior court convicted him of extortion, denied his motion for a new trial, and sentenced him to five years in prison, defendant appealed. The court reversed the conviction and directed the trial court to sustain the demurrer to the indictment and discharge defendant as to the indictment. The indictment was insufficient. It did not allege nor show that the specific injury threatened was an unlawful injury. There was no allegation that any unlawful act was threatened. It was not claimed that the money was obtained by force, or under color of official right. There was no allegation in the indictment that defendant ever held office. The extortion relied upon was an alleged threat to prevent the parties from obtaining a liquor license, and thus to prevent them from carrying on the business of selling wines and liquors at retail. There was no allegation as to any threat to injure any business in direct terms, but only the threat to prevent the parties from obtaining a license to sell liquors.
The court reversed the conviction for extortion. The court directed the trial court to sustain the demurrer to the indictment and discharge defendant as to the indictment.
