California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Deloach, 207 Cal.App.3d 323, 254 Cal.Rptr. 831 (Cal. App. 1989):
"On the other hand, if the evidence discloses that a defendant entertained multiple criminal objectives which were independent of and not merely incidental to each other, he may be punished for the independent violations committed in pursuit of each objective even though the violations were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct. [Citations.]" (People v. Perez, supra, 23 Cal.3d at pp. 550-551, 153 Cal.Rptr. 40, 591 P.2d 63, footnotes omitted.)
The question is whether the offenses of pandering and forcible oral copulation in this case were incident to a single objective and therefore [207 Cal.App.3d 337] constituted an indivisible transaction; that is, whether any of the offenses was committed as a means of committing any other, whether any facilitated the commission of any other, or whether any was incidental to the commission of any other. If so, appellant may be punished for only one offense. (People v. Perez, supra, at pp. 553-554, 153 Cal.Rptr. 40, 591 P.2d 63.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.