PC 261(a)(3) Rape of Intoxicated Woman: Criminal Defense Lawyers Explain CA Penal Code 261(a)(3)
- Nov 22, 2025
- 18 min read
Updated: Nov 30, 2025
Information on the crime of rape of an intoxicated woman is found at California penal code section 261(a)(3) PC, California Criminal Jury Instruction Section 1002 (Calcrim 1002), and other California and federal codes and cases (Caselaw).
This summary of the laws, penalties, and common defenses related to penal code 261(a)(3) [rape of intoxicated woman], includes post-conviction remedies related to penal code 261(a)(3).
For further information, please contact our California sex crimes criminal defense lawyers.
PC 261(a)(3) Law
Per California law, rape of an intoxicated woman is ‘an act of sexual intercourse with a person [victim] who is prevented from resisting sexual intercourse because of an intoxicating substance or drug, and the victim’s intoxicated condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the defendant' [PC 261(a)(3) Abbrev.].
Note: The defendant in a PC 261(a)(3) case does not have to be the person who provided the intoxicant (drug or alcohol) to the victim before he [defendant] may be found guilty.
Example: Jane becomes heavily intoxicated at a party to the point where she can barely stand on her own. David sees that Jane is heavily intoxicated and he takes her to a bedroom to have sex with her. At no time did David contribute to Jane's intoxication.
Result: David may be charged with rape of an intoxicated woman under penal code 261(a)(3). This is true even if David is not the person who provided drugs or alcohol to Jane to make her intoxicated.
In the above example, if David provided the intoxicating substance to Jane so that he [David] can more easily have sex with an otherwise unwilling, then David may be punished more severely (See PC 261(a)(3) Penalties).
Objective & Subjective Test Used: Both the objective and subjective test are used for determining whether the defendant knew, or should have known, that the victim was intoxicated to the level that she could not appreciate or understand the nature or consequences of sexual intercourse with the defendant, or she could not physically resist the defendant's sexual intercourse due to her level of intoxication.
Objective Test: The "objective" test, also known as "reasonable person" test, means that if the average person, who was the same or similar circumstances as the defendant at the time of sexual intercourse, would have concluded that the victim was not so intoxicated that she could not appreciate the nature or consequences of sexual intercourse, or physically resist the defendant during sexual intercourse, then the defendant acted reasonably in his belief.
The objective test will incorporate the defendant's level of intoxication when assessing whether the defendant acted reasonably.
Example: David and Sarah are both very drunk when they have sexual intercourse. The next day, Sarah alleges that she was too drunk to appreciate the consequences of her actions and that she was too drunk to physically resist David.
Result: Whether or not David made a reasonable mistake as to Sarah's level of intoxication is judged by what the average person would belief in David's intoxicated state.
Note: PC 261(a)(3) does not make it a crime for Sarah to have sexual intercourse with David while David is heavily intoxicated. This is because David, a man, cannot be a victim under PC 261(a)(3). The crime is rape of an intoxicated woman (biological female). However, Sarah could be prosecuted under other statutes, such as sexual assault (PC 220) for the same of similar conduct.
Subjective Test: The "subjective" test used in penal code 261(a)(3) cases refers to whether the defendant honestly believed that the victim was not intoxicated to the level that she could not appreciate the nature or consequences of her actions, or that she could not physically resist the defendant due to her level of intoxication.
In a PC 261(a)(3) prosecution, the district attorney only has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that either the objective test, or the subjective test, was not met by the defendant when he engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim.
Sexual Intercourse Defined: Sexual intercourse means ‘any penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or genitalia by the penis.’ [PC 263]. Ejaculation is not required to prove sexual penetration in the context of PC 261(a)(3) allegations [Calcrim 1002 Sum.].
In criminal law practice, the mere touching of the penis to the vagina (skin to skin) might constitute “penetration” for purposes of rape of intoxicated woman and attempted rape or intoxicated person allegations under penal code 261(a)(3) and 664/261(a)(3), respectively.
Voluntary v. Involuntary Intoxication
Rape of an intoxicated woman can occur regardless of whether the victim is voluntarily or involuntarily intoxicated. However, a PC 261(a)(3) violation does not automatically occur simply because the female is heavily intoxicated.
Example 1: Jane and David are in a relationship; they both like to have sex with each other while they are extremely high on drugs.
Result: Jane consented to having sexual intercourse with David while she [Jane] is heavily intoxicated, and Jane gave her voluntary consent to have sexual intercourse with David before she [Jane] became intoxicated. Therefore, there is no violation of PC 261(a)(3).
Example 2: Jane is extremely intoxicated, but Jane appears to be only mildly intoxicated, or "buzzed" at best. David has sex with Jane while David reasonably believes that Jane has the ability to verbally and physically object to sexual intercourse with David is she so chose.
Result: Daivd is not guilty of penal code 261(a)(3) because to him [David], and to the average person, Jane does not reasonably appear to be so intoxicated that she cannot physically resist, or otherwise verbally object to sexual intercourse with David.
Example 3: Jane and David are legally married as husband and wife. Jane becomes heavily intoxicated. David has sexual intercourse with Jane while Jane is heavily intoxicated because he [David] knows Jane cannot physically resist him [David] when Jane is so heavily intoxicated.
Result: David has committed a violation of PC 261(a)(3). This is true even though Jane and David are married (i.e., "Spousal Rape" [PC 261(a)(3) and formerly PC 262]).
Use of Anesthetic: A defendant who has sexual intercourse with a woman who is under an anesthetic may be charged under penal code 263(a)(3) even if the victim is not “intoxicated” with drugs or alcohol, so long as the defendant knew, or reasonably should have known, that the woman could not resist or object to sexual intercourse due to the anesthetic.
Level of Intoxication: The level of intoxication required of a victim for PC 261(a)(3) allegations to apply is different in every rape on an intoxicated woman case.
A PC 261(a)(3) allegation is charged when the victim is intoxicated to the level that she is not reasonably aware that sexual intercourse is occurring (i.e., she is not freely "consenting" to sexual intercourse), or when the victim does not act voluntarily when she engages in sexual intercourse (i.e., she is unable to physically resist sexual intercourse).
Consent Defined: Per PC 261.6(a), consent to engage in sexual intercourse means ‘positive cooperation in act or attitude to an exercise of free will. The person must act freely and voluntarily and have knowledge of the nature of the act or transaction involved' [PC 261.6(a) regarding definition of consent to engage in sexual intercourse under California law].
Example: David knows that Jane is drunk (heavily intoxicated). David also knows that Jane is not reasonably aware of what she is doing when she is drunk. Regardless, David has sexual intercourse with Jane while she is drunk.
Result: David is probably in violation of penal code 261(a)(3) because Jane is not reasonably aware of her actions when she is drunk.
Note: A current or previous dating or marital relationship is not sufficient to constitute implied consent if consent is at issue in a prosecution under Section 261(a)(3), 286, 287, or 289…, [PC 261.6(b) Abbrev.].
Victim’s Request for Contraception: A PC 261(a)(3) victim does not imply consent to sexual intercourse when she requests or suggests that the defendant use a condom, or other conception, during sexual intercourse (PC 261.7 Abbrev.).
Example: Dr. David administers local anesthesia to Jane. The anesthesia does not render Jane “intoxicated” in the legal sense, but it does render Jane unable to physically resist sexual advances by Dr. David. Dr. David begins to have sex with Jane while she is under anesthesia. In response, Jane asks David to use a condom during the nonconsensual sex because Jane is scared of venereal disease.
Result: David has committed rape of an "intoxicated" woman per PC 261(a)(3). This is true even though the local anesthesia did not impair Jane's ability to either understand the nature of the act of sexual intercourse or her ability to understand the consequences of sexual intercourse (i.e., possible impregnation).
Victim’s BAC not Controlling: There is no “blood alcohol concentration” limit, or BAC, that must be met before a woman is considered intoxicated under PC 261(a)(3). Rather, the test is whether the woman is intoxicated to the point that she cannot freely give consent to sexual intercourse, and/or whether she is sufficiently intoxicated that she cannot physically resist sexual intercourse.
Also, the type of alcohol, drug, controlled substance (CS), or anesthetic that causes the victim’s intoxication is not relevant in a prosecution for rape of intoxicated woman under penal code 261(a)(3), except in terms of the substance’s relevant toxicology and pharmacological effect on the victim.
However, a toxicology report of the victim’s blood could be important to a defense lawyer in ascertaining whether the victim likely underwent a pharmacological effect from the alleged intoxicating substance.
Example: Jane is a light drinker; she becomes heavily intoxicated to the point of not being able to resist sexual advances of David after she drinks only two beers. David is charged with rape of intoxicated victim after Jane accuses David of him having sexual intercourse with her [Jane] while she was too intoxicated to resist David’s sexual advances.
Result: The fact that beer is legal for Jane to drink, and the fact that Jane only has two beers (low BAC) is not a defense against David’s PC 261(a)(3) criminal charges. However, David’s criminal defense lawyer may request Jane’s toxicology report as part of David's defense because David could allege that Jane had no alcohol in her system at all during sexual intercourse (i.e., false allegation).
In sum, to prove that a criminal defendant is guilty of the crime of rape of woman while she is intoxicated per penal code 261(a)(3) and Calcrim 1002, the district attorney must prove all of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
The defendant had sexual intercourse with a woman,
The effect of alcohol or drugs, or a combination of alcohol and drugs, prevented the woman from resisting the defendant, or the woman did not know the nature of the act of sexual intercourse because of her intoxicated state, and
The defendant knew, or reasonably should have known, that the effect of alcohol or drug, or a combination of alcohol and drugs, prevented the woman from resisting (Calcrim 1002 Modified).
Note: The district attorney has the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not actually and reasonably believe that the woman could consent to sexual intercourse [Calcrim 1002] (See PC 261(a)(3) Defenses).
Closely Related Offense: If the intoxicated victim was fully asleep at the time of sexual intercourse (i.e., the woman was completely passed out drunk while defendant had sex with the woman), the defendant will face different, but similar, criminal charges known as “rape of unconscious person.” [See List of CA Rape Crimes]
PC 261(a)(3) Penalties & Sentence
Felony Classification: The crime of rape of intoxicated woman is always charged as a felony in CA. There is no misdemeanor version PC 261(a)(3). [i.e., rape of intoxicated woman is not a “wobbler” offense in California.
Prison Sentence: A criminal conviction for the crime of rape of intoxicated woman under PC 261(a)(3) will subject the defendant to either a three (3), six (6), or eight (8) year prison sentence, depending on the presence or absence of any mitigating or aggravating factors in the circumstances of the case, or depending on whether there is a negotiated plea bargain between the district attorney and the defendant that predetermines the length of defendant's prison sentence.
Mitigating and Aggravating Factors: When a judge sentences a defendant to prison after a conviction for PC 261(a)(3), and there is no negotiated plea bargain between the district attorney and the defendant that predetermines the length of prison sentence for the defendant, then the judge will have to consider the length of the defendant’s prison sentence based on any "mitigating" or "aggravating" factors that were present at the time of the defendant’s crime.
Example: After jury trial, David is convicted of PC 261(a)(3). At sentencing, the judge may sentence David to either three (3), six (6), or eight (8) years in a CA state prison (i.e., no predetermined length of prison sentence negotiated between DA and the defendant). To decide the length of David's prison sentence, the judge considers the following:
David has no criminal history (Mitigating Factor)
David took advantage of a position of trust (Aggravating Factor)
David confessed early in the case (Mitigating Factor)
David showed no remorse for his crime (Aggravating Factor)
The defendant… was induced by others to participate in the crime (Mitigating Factor)
Note: There might be many mitigating and aggravating factors that are considered by a judge when sentencing the defendant to a particular length of prison sentence a rape of intoxicated woman case. Mitigating and aggravating factors are found at California rules of court 4.423 and 4.421, respectively.
No 1170(H) Sentencing: When a defendant is convicted of rape of intoxicated woman under PC 261(a)(3), he must serve his prison sentence in a California state prison, as opposed to a local county jail.
In addition, no part of the defendant’s prison sentence after a conviction for PC 261(a)(3) may be “split” (served partially out of prison on post-release community supervision, or felony probation), or “suspended” (not served subject to future violation of a condition of suspended sentence, aka “joint suspended sentence”).
Probation Sentence Ineligible: A conviction for rape of intoxicated woman (victim) is not eligible for felony probation. This means the defendant must be incarcerated in a CA state prison if he is convicted of penal code 261(a)(3) [i.e., either three (e), six (6), or eight (8) year prison sentence depending on the presence of absence of any mitigation or aggravating circumstances related to the crime and the defendant (see above).
Sex Offender Registration: A conviction for violating PC 261(a)(3) [Rape of Intoxicated Woman] will result in a mandatory lifetime sex offender registration with local law enforcement (PC 290 “Tier Three (3) Sex Offender Registration). For more information on sex offender registration requirements after conviction for PC 261(a)(3), see PC 290 Requirements.
Good Conduct Credits: "Good conduct credits" are earned deductions that reduce the length of incarceration when an inmate serves his time with good behavior. A conviction for rape of intoxicated woman is eligible for up to either fifty percent (50%) good conduct credits, or fifteen percent (15%) good conduct credits, depending on the defendant level of culpability at the time of his offense (PC 4019 & 2933.1).
Note: Defendants who are found to have “intended” to render the victim intoxicated in any PC 261(a)(3) case will receive only fifteen percent (15%) good conduct credits.
Example 1: David slips Jane a “date rape drug” (i.e., Rohypnol "Roofies," gamma hydroxybutyrate "GHB" or "Liquid Ecstasy,', or ketamine "Special K"). After Jane is “intoxicated” with the date rape drug, David has sexual intercourse with Jane.
Result: David intended to render Jane intoxicated for the purpose of raping her. Therefore, David must serve no less than eighty-five percent (85%) of his prison sentence. This is true even if David serves his prison sentence with “good behavior.” For more information on Intoxication by "Date Rape Drugs," see CA Date Rape Crimes.
Alternatively, in the above example, if David is convicted of PC 261(a)(3), but without the intent to render Jane intoxicated for the purpose of having sex with her (i.e., Jane was already drunk on alcohol or drugs when David met Jane), then David may receive up to fifty percent (50%) off his prison sentence if he serves his prison sentence with “good behavior.”
Violent and/or Serious Offense: All PC 261(a)(3) convictions are considered “serious” offenses, as that term is defined in the California law at penal code 1192.7.
If the defendant “intended” to render the victim intoxicated so that he can rape the victim, such as when the defendant uses a “date rape” drug on a rape victim, then defendant will also suffer a “violent” offense conviction, as that term is defined under PC 667.5.
Three Strikes Sentencing Law: Both “serious” and “violent” crimes, including rape of intoxicated victim crimes charged as PC 261(a)(3), are considered “strike” offenses under California’s Three Strikes Sentencing Law.
As such, a conviction for any penal code 261(a)(3) offense will carry harsher post-conviction consequences, including longer jail and prison sentences for subsequent criminal convictions, reduced parole opportunities (for "violent" offense conviction of PC 261(a)(3)), and mandatory ineligibility for probation sentences for any subsequent felony conviction.
Immigration Consequences: Both rape of an intoxicated woman, and attempted rape of intoxicated person (PC 664/261(a)(3)], are considered “violent” offenses under federal law (different definition of “violent” offense under federal law as compared to California state law), crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMT), and “deportable” offenses under federal immigration law.
This means that a non-United States citizen convicted of convicted of rape of an intoxicated woman (PC 261(a)(3)), or attempted rape of intoxicated person (PC 664/261(a)(3)) will suffer severe immigration consequences, including, denial of entry into the U.S., denial of citizenship and/or naturalization, and deportation from the United States).
Crime Involving Moral Turpitude: PC 261(a)(3) crimes are classified as “crimes involving moral turpitude,” or CIMT. A crime involving moral turpitude is a crime that involves immoral conduct or involves deceit.
Crimes involving moral turpitude, including the crime of rape of intoxicated woman, carry both direct and indirect consequences, including immigration consequences (see above), professional licensing consequences (denial or revocation of professional license), and impeached character in subsequent civil and criminal proceedings.
Lifetime Firearm Prohibition: A conviction for rape of intoxicated victim will result in a lifetime firearm ban for the defendant. This lifetime ban includes a prohibition from the defendant owning, or possessing, any firearm, ammunition for firearms, or body armor.
In some cases, a Governor's Pardon of a Felony Sex Offense might restore the defendant's firearm rights after a penal code 261(a)(3) conviction. (See Governor's Pardon for Sex Offense Conviction).
Additional Consequences: In addition to the penalties, prison sentence, and other punishments listed above, if found guilty of penal code 261(a)(3) [Rape of Intoxicated Woman], the defendant may suffer civil lawsuits for battery and/or infliction of emotional distress, criminal protective orders (CPOs) in favor of victim, restitution to restore victim’s financial loss related to the crime, fines, court security fees, loss of reputation, loss of family law rights, and more.
Defenses to PC 261(a)(3)
The facts that support a penal code 261(a)(3) allegation are different from case to case; therefore, the defense that best fits a PC 261(a)(3) allegation will differ from case to case. The following is a summary of the most common defenses used by criminal defense lawyers in a rape of an intoxicated woman case.
Insufficient evidence: Before a defendant may be found guilty of penal code 261(a)(3), the district attorney must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, all of the following:
the defendant and the alleged victim had sexual intercourse,
the alleged victim was unable to physically resist the defendant’s sexual intercourse, or the alleged victim could not appreciate the nature or consequences of the sexual intercourse due to intoxication, and
the defendant knew or should have known that the woman was intoxicated to the point that she could not resist sexual intercourse or know the nature and qualify of her conduct due to her level of intoxication.
The defendant might defend against a PC 261(a)(3) allegation in any of the above areas.
Example 1: The lack of corroborating scientific evidence, such as the presence of seminal fluid, DNA, or defendant's hair fibers that might be expected to be found in and around the woman’s vagina during a post-sexual intercourse physical exam (i.e., “rape test kit”), might impeach the woman’s testimony that sexual intercourse occurred. This defense correlates to a false accusation claim by the defendant.
Note: In a false allegation of rape of an intoxicated woman case, impeachment of the alleged victim’s character for trustworthiness and honesty is usually examined by the defendant's criminal defense lawyer.
Example 2: During sexual intercourse, the alleged victim might have been intoxicated to the point of not being able to physically resist the defendant or understand the nature of the act of sexual intercourse with the defendant, but the alleged victim’s appearance to the average person (objective test), and the defendant himself (subjective test), was that of a person who is not intoxicated to the level described in penal code 261(a)(3) [Rape of an Intoxicated Woman].
Note: The defense of honest and reasonable mistake as to the alleged victim’s level of intoxication during sexual intercourse will usually require a defense witness (or defendant himself) to testify for the defense, such as a person who testifies as to the alleged victim’s mental and physical appearance near the time the defendant and the alleged victim had sexual intercourse.
Remember, “the defendant is not guilty of PC 261(a)(3) if he actually (subjective test) and reasonably (objective test) believed that the woman was capable of legal consent to sexual intercourse (See Definition of Legal Consent Above). [Calcrim 1002]. Also, it is the district attorney who must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not honestly and reasonably believe the alleged victim was intoxicated to the level announced in PC 261(a)(3).
Illegal search and seizure: Essentially, prosecutor attorneys may only use evidence against a criminal defendant if that evidence is relevant to the case and it is collected without violating the defendant’s Constitutional Rights against unreasonable search and seizure).
An illegal search and seizure defense might apply in a penal code 261(a)(3) case where the defendant’s clothing or DNA was collected for evidence to be used against the defendant, but that evidence was collected without legal authority (i.e., collected pursuant to warrant supported by Probable Cause, or some exception to the warrant requirement).
Note: Search and seizure laws, and their procedural applications for defense options in PC 261(a)(3) cases, are numerous and complex. For a clearer understanding of how illegal search and seizure might apply as a defense to a rape of an intoxicated woman criminal allegation, please contact our sex crimes criminal defense lawyers for consultation.
Miranda Violations: A “Miranda” violation is the taking of the defendant’s voluntary statement by law enforcement while under law enforcement interrogation, but without the defendant’s advisal by law enforcement that he [defendant] has the right to remain silent and that anything he says may be used against him in court (“Miranda” Rights Abbrev.).
A Miranda Rights Violation defense might occur in a rape of intoxicated woman case (PC 261(a)(3)) where the defendant makes self-incriminating statement during police interrogation, such as a confession, but where the defendant was not properly Mirandized before making that self-incriminating state.
Note: The application of a criminal defendant's "Miranda Rights," or his 5th Amendment Right against Self-Incrimination and 6th Amendment Right against Law Enforcement Interrogation Outside the Presence of his Lawyer, are complex legal topics. Application of these laws to the defense of penal code 261(a)(3) allegations may be further discussed without sex crimes criminal defense lawyers at no cost.
Coerced Confession: A coerced confession occurs where the defendant is properly Mirandized before law enforcement interrogation (see Above), but the atmosphere surrounding the defendant’s statement, or the style of the law enforcement interrogation itself, is unduly coercive, and that coercive atmosphere or style of questioning leads to the defendant's false confession or an incriminating statement, in whole or in part (“Messiah” Rights Violation).
Jury Nullification: Jury Nullification occurs where the jury believe, a juror believes, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty of the alleged crime, but where the jury, or a juror, votes to acquit the defendant nevertheless (i.e., find the defendant “not guilty” of the alleged crime).
Jury nullification is not legal defense pursued by criminal defense lawyers in PC 261(a)(3) cases. Rather, jury nullification occurs in a PC 261(a)(3) case where the jury nullifies, or renders void, the prosecutor’s rape of an intoxicated woman's case, by finding the criminal defendant “not guilty” even when the jury, or a juror, actually believe(s) that the defendant is guilty of raping a woman while she is intoxicated.
Jury nullification sometimes occurs in PC 261(a)(3) cases because the jury, either dislikes the alleged victim for some reason, or the jury, or juror, has a favorable impression of the defendant, or a belief that the punishment is too harsh for the defendant’s alleged conduct in that particular PC 261(a)(3) case.
Statute of Limitations: The statute of limitations (SOL) is a law (statute) that limits the amount of time the district attorney has to file a criminal charge against the defendant. If the district attorney does not file a criminal charge within that crime’s relevant statute of limitations, then the district attorney is forever barred from filing those criminal charges.
In a rape of an intoxicated woman case filed as a penal code 261(a)(3) violation, the statute of limitations changes depending on several factors, including the age of the woman at the time of the alleged rape. Under normal circumstances, where the alleged rape victim is eighteen (18) years of age or older at the time of the alleged rape, the statute of limitations is ten (10) years from the date of the alleged offense (PC 799-805).
Note: The statute of limitations might extend beyond the period otherwise called for under PC 261(a)(3) and PC 799-805. This occurs for various reasons, including when the defendant has intentionally removed himself from the criminal court's jurisdiction (i.e., "fugitive status"). For more information, see Statute of Limitations for CA Sex Crimes.
Plea Bargain as Defense: In some rape of an intoxicated woman cases, the defendant will enter into a plea bargain with the district attorney or the judge, whereby the defendant pleads guilty (as opposed to proceeding to trial), in exchange for a guaranteed reduced prison sentence (i.e., "sentence bargaining") or a guaranteed reduced criminal charge (i.e., "charge bargaining"), or both.
A “plea bargain” is not a true defense to a PC 261(a)(3) criminal charge in the sense that the defendant is found "not guilty" of criminal allegation or the criminal charge is dismissed for some legal or technical reason(s).
The strength of the bargaining position for the criminal defendant in a penal code 261(a)(3) case boils down to the strength of the evidence against the defendant and the experience of the defendant’s criminal defense attorney.
Note: A criminal defendant does not have to enter into a plea bargain with the district attorney, but most PC 261(a)(3) cases involve the district attorney and the criminal defense lawyer at least attempting to resolve the case by way of plea bargain, unless there is some patent technical or procedural defense upon which the defendant relies in hopes of his case being dismissed by the judge.
Post-Conviction Options: Post-conviction options for a criminal defendant convicted of rape of intoxicated woman (victim) [PC 261(a)(3)] include: 1) appeal his felony conviction, 2) withdraw his guilty plea (PC 1018), or 3) petition the governor of California for a pardon or clemency.
Note: A California Governor's Pardon of a PC 261(a)(3) conviction does not relieve the defendant from the duty to register as a sex offender pursuant to PC 290 unless the California governor specifically grants clemency from that requirement.
If you are charged with rape of an intoxicated woman, or California penal code 261(a)(3) PC, contact our sex crimes criminal defense lawyers today for a free case evaluation.
Our highly experienced and successful criminal defense lawyers, including winning trial lawyers, have defended countless misdemeanor and felony sex crimes criminal charges in San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and Los Angeles Counties, including PC 288 (Lewd Acts), PC 243.4 (Sexual Battery), PC 311 (Poss. of Child Porn), PC 287 (Oral Copulation), PC 647(b) (Prostitution), PC 289 (Sexual Penetration), PC 314 (Indecent Exposure), PC 261 (Rape) & more.
Important: Time is of the essence when it comes to successfully defending rape charges filed under penal code 261(a)(3). Never wait until your first court date to retain an experienced criminal defense lawyer with deep experience in defending rape charges and never talk to anyone about your case without a lawyer by your side, especially law enforcement officers or the alleged rape victim. Call today!
909-913-3138
Closely Related Crimes
