How have courts interpreted the definition of "duress" in the context of sexual assault cases?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Leal, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 869, 33 Cal.4th 999, 94 P.3d 1071 (Cal. 2004):
Defendant appealed his conviction and argued, inter alia, that the trial court erred by defining "duress" to include "a direct or implied threat of `hardship.'" The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of conviction, declining to follow the contrary holding in People v. Valentine (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1241, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 748. We granted review to resolve this conflict.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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.
Other Questions
How have courts interpreted the statutory language of the Sexual Offences Prevention Act (SVPA) in the context of sexual assault cases? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the definition of reasonable doubt in a sexual assault case? (California, United States of America)
When a photograph of a defendant in a sexual assault case was found to have been taken in the context of an alleged sexual assault, is there any connection to the subsequent verdict of attempted sodomy? (California, United States of America)
How has the Court treated prior sexual assault cases in the context of domestic violence cases? (California, United States of America)
How has the court interpreted the word "likely" in the context of a sexual assault case? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted the facts in our statement of facts in the context of a sexual assault case? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted "Fear" in the context of sexual assault cases? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted jury instructions in cases involving sexual assault cases? (California, United States of America)
For the purposes of section 1108.2(1) of the California Criminal Code, is there any constitutional error in a trial court's decision to instruct the jury in a sexual assault case to consider the use of sexual assault evidence admitted under Section 1108? (California, United States of America)
In a sexual assault case, how have the courts dealt with claims that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding evidence of the victim's other sexual conduct? (California, United States of America)
