California v. White
Annotate this CaseA jury found Billy Charles White guilty of rape of an intoxicated person and of rape of an unconscious person. The trial court sentenced White to three years in state prison and ordered him to register as a sex offender. White argued on appeal: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to prove under Penal Code section 261 that when he engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim, he knew the victim was unable to resist because of intoxication (count 1) or because the victim was unconscious of the nature of the act of intercourse (count 2); (2) the trial court prejudicially erred by refusing both to instruct the jury on mistake of fact and to grant his new trial motion based on juror misconduct; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion when it denied him probation. On its own motion, the Court of Appeal requested supplemental briefing from the parties whether White's convictions on counts 1 and 2 should have been consolidated under "California v. Craig," (17 Cal.2d 453 (1941))and its progeny into a single conviction given there was a single act of sexual intercourse. In an unpublished opinion filed April 10, 2013, the Court rejected White's contentions on appeal. After considering the supplemental briefing of the parties, the Court concluded that White was not properly convicted both on counts 1 and 2 and further, that the judgment had to be modified to reflect only one conviction for violation of section 261. The California Supreme Court granted the State's petition for review, but deferred further action on the matter pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in "California v. Gonzalez," (60 Cal.4th 533 (2014)). After the court issued its opinion in that matter, it transferred the matter to the Court of Appeal with directions to reconsider the case in light of Gonzalez. The appellate court complied with the Supreme Court's direction and affirmed the judgment as modified. Specifically, the Court of Appeal concluded that "Gonzalez" did not hold that White can be convicted of both rape of an intoxicated person and rape of an unconscious person based on a single act of intercourse under section 261. As such, the second count for rape was stricken. The judgment as modified was affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.