Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 17,300+ case briefs...

People v. Giardino

California Court of Appeal
98 Cal. Rptr. 2d 315 (2000)


The victim, a 16-year-old friend of Mark Giardino’s (defendant) stepdaughter, spent the night at Giardino’s house. The victim consumed two drinks of bourbon and subsequently became giggly, had slurred speech, and fell several times. However, the victim seemed aware of her actions. Giardino and another man, Thomas Lyles, took the victim to a motel and helped the victim climb upstairs. Once in a room, the victim started to take a shower. When Giardino called to the victim and she entered the bedroom, both men were naked. The victim claimed she walked toward the door and asked if they were going home. Giardino and Lyles claimed that the victim encouraged sexual relations. Giardino instructed the victim to have intercourse with Lyles and to have oral copulation, or sexual intercourse, with Giardino. Giardino and Lyles then engaged in various forms of intercourse with the victim. The victim claimed she was only partially conscious during these activities and was merely responding to instructions from Giardino. Giardino attempted to apply a sexually stimulating drug to the victim’s face using a cloth, but the victim held her breath and pushed the cloth away. The victim then dressed and walked down the stairs unassisted, and the group drove back to Giardino’s house. The victim stayed overnight and into the next day without any objections. Giardino was charged and convicted of rape by intoxication, oral copulation by intoxication, oral copulation with a minor, and unlawful sexual intercourse. Giardino appealed the rape and oral-copulation-by-intoxication convictions on the grounds that the trial court erred by failing to: (1) include lack of consent as an element in the offenses and (2) provide an adequate instruction regarding the prevented-from-resisting element of the offenses.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (McKinster, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 457,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 457,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 17,300 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial