## Facts

- The defendant was prosecuted for forcible rape arising from sexual intercourse that occurred in a hotel room with the complainant.
- The complainant testified she went to the room to watch television and that the defendant used force and threats, including hitting her and preventing her from leaving, to compel intercourse.
- The defendant testified the complainant voluntarily accompanied him, initiated sexual contact, and later demanded money; after he refused, she became angry and accused him of rape.
- Both parties requested a jury instruction allowing acquittal if the jury found the defendant had an honest and reasonable but mistaken belief that the complainant consented.
- The trial court refused to give the requested mistake-of-fact-as-to-consent instruction, and the jury convicted the defendant of forcible rape.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding substantial evidence supported giving the instruction.
- The state supreme court granted review to determine whether the record required the instruction.

## Issues

1. In a forcible rape prosecution, when must a trial court instruct on a defense theory that the defendant honestly and reasonably but mistakenly believed the complainant consented?
2. Does the defense require substantial evidence of the complainant’s “equivocal conduct,” and if so, was such evidence present on this record?

## Decision

- The state supreme court reversed the Court of Appeal and reinstated the conviction.
- The court held a mistake-of-consent instruction is required only when the record contains substantial evidence that the complainant engaged in equivocal conduct that could support a reasonable, good-faith mistaken belief in consent.
- The court concluded the evidence did not show equivocal conduct by the complainant sufficient to warrant the instruction; the trial court therefore acted properly in refusing it.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court must instruct on a defense theory only when supported by substantial evidence; a request alone, or speculative or self-serving assertions untethered to supporting circumstances, is insufficient.
- Mistake of fact as to consent in forcible rape has both:
  - a subjective component (the defendant actually held an honest, good-faith belief in consent), and
  - an objective component (the belief was reasonable based on the complainant’s observable conduct).
- A mistake-of-consent instruction is not warranted absent substantial evidence of the complainant’s equivocal conduct—conduct that could reasonably be interpreted as consenting and thus could generate a reasonable, good-faith mistake.

## Conclusion

The court limited mistake-of-consent instructions in forcible rape cases to situations where substantial evidence shows the complainant’s conduct was objectively equivocal and could reasonably have led to an honest, good-faith mistaken belief in consent; because the record presented a credibility dispute without substantial evidence of such equivocal conduct, no instruction was required and the conviction stood.


People v. Williams, 4 Cal. 4th 354 (Cal. 1992)