## Facts

- Marvin S. Samuels, an ophthalmologist, produced sadomasochistic films depicting bound individuals being whipped; in one film he administered the whipping.
- A film came to police attention after processing by a commercial lab.
- The principal film depicted a naked, gagged man suspended while being whipped by Samuels.
- Samuels claimed the whipping was simulated and that cosmetic markings were used to create the appearance of injury.
- Film experts testified the injuries developed progressively during the continuous footage, with no splices or signs of retouching, supporting that the lash marks were genuine and the whipping was real.
- Samuels asserted the participant was a masochist who volunteered and consented to the whipping.
- A jury convicted Samuels of aggravated assault (assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury) and conspiracy to prepare/distribute obscene matter; it acquitted him of sodomy.
- The trial court suspended imposition of sentence, imposed a $3,000 fine, and granted 10 years’ probation; Samuels appealed the probation order.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury under California Penal Code § 245.
2. Whether an adult victim’s consent to being whipped is a defense to aggravated assault under Penal Code § 245, and whether the trial court properly instructed the jury that consent was not a defense.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and the probation order.
- The evidence, including expert testimony analyzing the film, was sufficient for the jury to find that Samuels used force likely to produce great bodily injury.
- The victim’s alleged consent was not a legal defense to aggravated assault in these circumstances.
- The trial court did not err by instructing the jury that consent was not a defense to the charged aggravated assault.

## Legal Principles

- Assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury may be proven by evidence showing the severity and real-world effects of the force used, including expert analysis of visual recordings.
- For aggravated assault involving force likely to cause serious injury, victim consent generally does not negate criminal liability; limited exceptions may exist for socially accepted contexts (e.g., regulated sports or medical treatment).
- A trial court may instruct the jury that consent is not a defense where, as a matter of law, the charged conduct falls outside recognized exceptions and involves force likely to cause great bodily injury.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Samuels’s aggravated-assault conviction, ruling that the film and expert testimony supported a finding of real, injurious whipping and that the participant’s consent did not provide a defense to assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury.


People v. Samuels, 250 Cal. App. 2d 501 (Ct. App. 1967)