People v. Williams
California Supreme Court
841 P.2d 961 (1992)
- Written by Sara Rhee, JD
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
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Arabian, J.)
Concurrence (Mosk, J.)
Concurrence (Kennard, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
