In People v. Craig (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1593, the defendant followed the victim's car to her house. When the victim pulled into her driveway, the defendant parked and got out of his car. He approached the victim, then apologized and said he thought she was someone else. As the victim was helping her son out of the back seat of her car, the defendant confronted her, grabbed her by the hair, pushed her back into the driver's seat and told her not to look at him. While the victim struggled, the defendant shoved his free hand inside her shirt and placed his hand flat against her chest, touching both of her breasts outside of her bra. A man the victim lived with noticed a commotion outside and pulled the defendant off of the victim. (Craig, supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1595-1596.) The defendant had similarly accosted two other women. In each instance, the defendant pulled out a knife, placed it near the victim's throat, and put his hand on the blouse and bra of the victim. In one of the cases, the defendant fondled the victim's breast, and in another case he put his hand underneath the victim's skirt and touched her panties. (Id. at pp. 1596-1597.) The Court found sufficient evidence of intent to rape where the defendant followed the victim as she drove home and then told her he had mistaken her for someone else. Instead of leaving, he pushed the victim onto the driver's seat, placed his hand under her sweater, and "touched both of her breasts outside her bra." The attack was then interrupted. (Id. at p. 1596.) The Court concluded that the evidence raised the inference that the defendant would have continued to pursue sexual intercourse by force had he not been interrupted. (Id. at p. 1600.) "All of the defendant's conduct was consistent with the intent to commit rape. Nothing he did or said indicated that he intended only to place his hands on her body or to accomplish some sexual act short of or different from intercourse. While other reasonable inferences also might be drawn, it was for the trier of fact, not us, to draw them." (Id. at p. 1604.)The court found that, given "the entire melange of circumstances," including evidence of two prior similar acts by the defendant, a reasonable trier of fact could infer that appellant assaulted the victim with the specific intent of committing rape. (Id. at p. 1604.) The Craig court noted that the defendant "made no statements suggesting that his intent was to commit rape or that it was not." (Id. at p. 1599.) In addition, the Craig court found the physical act evidence stronger than in Greene. (Craig, at p. 1600.) The Craig court concluded that the totality of the circumstances established assault with the specific intent to commit rape. "All of the defendant's conduct was consistent with that intent. Nothing he did or said indicated that he intended only to place his hands on her body or to accomplish some sexual act short of or different from intercourse. While other reasonable inferences also might be drawn, it was for the jury, not us, to draw them." (Id. at p. 1604.)