In what circumstances have courts found that a defendant used a pair of 18-inch scissors in the commission of oral copulation and rape?

In People v. Jackson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 560, 167 Cal.Rptr. 915, the victim was sleeping and awoke to find the defendant standing over her and "holding an 18-inch pair of scissors." (Id. at p. 564, 167 Cal.Rptr. 915.) She struggled with him, and then attempted to "stall" him by suggesting that they go into another room. They went into the other room, where the defendant undressed the victim and forced her to perform oral copulation. After a brief conversation, the defendant then raped the victim. During the acts of oral copulation and rape, the scissors were "in defendant's pants which were lying on the floor." (Id. at p. 568, 167 Cal.Rptr. 915.) He was convicted of forcible oral copulation and of rape. The jury also found that he had used a deadly weapon (the scissors) in the commission of the two crimes. He argued on appeal that he had not "used" the scissors in the commission of the oral copulation and rape because the scissors were in the pants on the floor when the sex crimes were being perpetrated. The appellate court rejected this argument.

"There was testimony upon which a jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant in fact used a deadly weapon. The victim testified that she awoke to find defendant standing over her and holding the 18-inch scissors and that she complied with defendant's demands because she was afraid for her safety and continued to be afraid. Finally, an expert witness testified that there were smudges on the scissors and that it was not unusual not to find fingerprints on articles of evidence." (People v. Jackson, supra, 110 Cal.App.3d at p. 569, 167 Cal.Rptr. 915.)

[39 Cal.App.4th 433] Three years later in People v. Turner (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 658, 193 Cal.Rptr. 614, the victim had opened her car door and was about to get into the car when the defendant brandished a pistol and shoved her inside the car. He then entered the car on the passenger side and ordered her to drive to a secluded spot. Once there, he forced her to remove her pants and to orally copulate him. He then orally copulated her and raped her. He then robbed her of four gold chains and forty dollars. At his trial he was found guilty of kidnapping, two counts of oral copulation, rape and robbery. The jury also found that he had used a gun in the commission of each of the five crimes. On appeal, he argued that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury, on the court's own initiative, on the meaning of being "armed" with a firearm. The court rejected this argument and pointed out that appellant "used" the gun in the commission of all five crimes, even though there had been no more brandishing of the gun after the defendant had shoved the victim into her car.