By Ray Hill 

Professor Emeritus, Santa Rosa Junior College 

Legal Issues and Case Reference 

Duress Necessary for Forcible Rape Established by Defendant’s Purely Psychological Threat of Retribution by God (261)(a)(2) P.C. 

Facts: The defendant lived in San Jacinto and maintained a “strict and religious” household. He quoted the Bible often. He prohibited his daughters from going to other people’s houses, talking to boys and using social media. They were virtually housebound for years. The defendant also regularly administered corporal punishment with a belt, cord and broom when he perceived his daughters had misbehaved. 

In the case at hand, the defendant raped and impregnated his 16-year-old daughter and raped and sodomized his 13-year-old daughter. He forced his daughters’ submission to intercourse by instilling in them the belief that he was the son of God, that disobeying him would anger God, create a trial with God and lead to hell, and that having sex with one’s father was permitted by the Bible. He implied and directly threatened retribution from God if the victims disobeyed his commands to engage in intercourse (“Obeying your parent is a commandment, like the Ten Commandants.”) 

The defendant was convicted of eight felony counts (rape, sodomy, incest and child molesting) and sentenced to 150 years in prison. He appealed, contending none of his actions fell within the definition of duress or menace, no force or violence was used during the acts and his daughters willingly consented to the sex acts. 

Held: 4DCA held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury’s finding the defendant used fear and duress to commit forcible rape and other unlawful sex acts (261(a)(2) & (b)(1) P.C.) A psychological threat of retribution is akin to the direct use of force or fear. 

Duress is defined as circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to perform or acquiesce to an act which otherwise would not be performed. Duress is objective in nature and is assessed by examining the “totality of circumstances.” In this case, the facts of indoctrination, isolation, use of corporal punishment, and threat of future retribution psychologically coerced his daughters into submitting to sex acts. 

The defendant’s convictions were upheld  

Author’s Notes: 4DCA commented “this was an unusual case.” The ruling brings new clarity to the definition of duress in rape and other sexual assault prosecutions.