Logourl black
From our private database of 13,800+ case briefs...

People v. Williams

Supreme Court of California
841 P.2d 961 (1992)


Facts

On November 4, 1989, the victim stood outside a homeless shelter where she was staying. According to the victim, a resident at the shelter named Williams (defendant) approached her and asked her to get coffee. After spending the morning together, Williams asked her if she wanted to watch television. She agreed and he took her to a nearby hotel. The victim did not realize it was a hotel until Williams rented a room and requested a bed sheet. They went into the room, which had no television set. The victim confronted Williams but he did not respond. He instead asked her to join him on the bed. The victim attempted to leave, but Williams physically blocked the door. He yelled at her, hit her in the eye, and threatened to hurt her if she did not cooperate. The victim cooperated and they engaged in sexual intercourse. Williams had an entirely different account from the victim. He said he did not go to the hotel room intending to have sex with her. However, when they got into the room, the victim began kissing him and taking off her clothes. He stated that the victim fondled him and initiated sexual intercourse. Afterwards, the victim left and reported the incident to police. At trial, the court refused to instruct the jury on a mistake of fact defense. The jury found Williams guilty. The Court of Appeal reversed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Arabian, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Concurrence (Mosk, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Concurrence (Kennard, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

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 97,000 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 169,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 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.