People v. Williams

21 P.3d 1209 (2001)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D was charged in an 11-count information with committing the offenses of false imprisonment, assault with a deadly weapon or by force likely to produce great bodily injury, forcible rape, battery with serious bodily injury, and torture against his former girlfriend, Jennifer B. There were alleged to have occurred during three incidents. D was charged in an 11-count information with committing the offenses of false imprisonment, assault with a deadly weapon or by force likely to produce great bodily injury, forcible rape, battery with serious bodily injury, and torture against his former girlfriend, Jennifer B., during three incidents occurring on December 31, 1994, January 1, 1995, and January 9, 1995. The information alleged that D used a deadly or dangerous weapon in the commission of five of the counts, used a deadly weapon in the commission of one of the charged rapes, and inflicted great bodily injury on the victim in the commission of another of the counts. At the time of the first incident, D was 18 years of age and his girlfriend, Jennifer B., was 16 years of age. Both testified that they engaged in sexual intercourse on that date. D testified it was consensual, and Jennifer B. testified D forced her to engage in intercourse by threatening her with knives. During argument, defense counsel quoted the following statement from a Supreme Court case: 'The guarantee of jury trial in the federal and state Constitutions reflect a profound judgment about the way in which law should be enforced and justice administered. A right to jury trial is granted to criminal defendants in order to prevent oppression by the government.' And further on in the case at the end are the lovely words, 'A jury may, at times, afford a higher justice by refusing to enforce harsh laws.' Please understand.' During deliberations, Juror No. 10 refused to adhere to Judge's instruction to uphold the law in regard to rape and statutory rape. He believes the law is wrong and, therefore, will not hear any discussions.' The trial court questioned Juror No. 10 and dismissed him and replaced him with an alternate juror. D objected. D was convicted of the misdemeanor offense of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor and was convicted of assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury, false imprisonment, and torture. The jury found true the allegation that he inflicted great bodily injury on the victim, and found each of the remaining allegations not true. D appealed. The appeals court affirmed and D appealed. D contends that the trial court's order denied him his right to trial by jury because Juror No. 10 properly was exercising his alleged right to engage in juror nullification by refusing to follow the law regarding unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.