Doctors Sex Crimes Against Patients Charges Cases In California
The evidence in People v. Ing (1967) 65 Cal. 2d 603 55 Cal. Rptr. 902, 422 P.2d 590 was that the defendant, a medical doctor, had administered injections to the victim on several occasions; that after receiving the shots, the victim felt " 'light-headed' " and " 'just didn't care about anything' " (id. at p. 607); that the doctor would then have intercourse with her; and that she would not have engaged in intercourse with him had she not been under the influence of the drugs (ibid.)
There was apparently no evidence that the victim was unable to speak or otherwise communicate a refusal to consent; indeed, the evidence suggested that the victim actually consented to intercourse.
Nevertheless, the court summarily rejected the defendant's contention that the evidence was insufficient to support his rape convictions. (Id. at p. 612.)
In another case against a medical doctor, the victim testified that she went to the defendant for treatment of a suspected illness. (People v. Wojahn (1959) 169 Cal. App. 2d 135, 139 337 P.2d 192.)
He had her disrobe and gave her a shot and a capsule to swallow. (Ibid.)
"Thereafter she was unable in standing against a wall with her eyes closed to touch her nose with her fingers. She felt light and relaxed, her feet felt glued to the floor, and she felt as though her body were swaying. She detailed his actions, which culminated in one or more acts of sexual intercourse with her. She became frightened and dizzy and almost blacked out." (Ibid.)
She did not consent to the intercourse. (Ibid.) the court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the guilty verdict. (Id. at p. 141.)
Similarly, after ingesting an unspecified drug in a glass of wine at a restaurant, the victim in People v. Crosby (1911) 17 Cal. App.. 518 120 P. 441 walked with the defendant several blocks and up a flight of stairs to a rooming house, waited while the defendant registered for a room, and climbed another flight of stairs with the defendant and the landlord. (Id. at p. 521.)
She knew that it was "wrong and improper" to accompany the defendant into the room and told him so. (Id. at pp. 521, 523.)
Nevertheless, she did not call for assistance from the patrons in the restaurant, pedestrians on the streets, or the landlord because the drug made her feel weak and dizzy, and she "didn't know half the time what she was doing" (id. at p. 523).
The court stated in dicta that the evidence would have been sufficient to uphold the jury's verdict had that verdict not been tainted by prosecutorial misconduct. (Id. at p. 524.)