The Court of Appeal holds here that Rusiate Waqa should have been sentenced to 15 years to life rather than 25 years to life because he was only guilty of simple (as opposed to aggravated) kidnapping during the rape he committed.
Justice Humes' opinion in this regard is pretty darn comprehensive. I'll add that 15 years to life is still a lengthy period of incarceration, particularly since the facts of the underlying crime strongly suggest (to me, anyway) that Mr. Waqa probably won't be getting out of prison on his first parole eligibility hearing, or even anytime soon thereafter.
The rape was committed in a public restroom at a park in Santa Rosa, and the jury convicted Mr. Waqa of aggravated kidnapping -- rather than simple kidnapping -- because it thought that his moving the victim from the "normal" bathroom stall (where she had just finished going to the bathroom) to the adjacent (larger) "disabled" stall "substantially increased the risk of harm to the victim over and above that level of risk necessarily inherent in the [rape]." The Court of Appeal concludes, however, that that's not the case; that getting into the larger stall didn't substantially increase the risk to the victim, and as I said, Justice Humes' analysis in this regard is both multifaceted and quite detailed. It's persuasive to all of the members of the panel, and reading it, you can see why. Justice Humes explains in depth why all of the things that the prosecution said could happen in the larger disabled stall (e.g., leaning on the victim, closing the door behind him, etc.) could happen in the smaller stall as well, so for that reason, there was insufficient evidence that the risk to the victim was "substantially increased" as a result of the movement to the larger adjacent stall. So the "kidnapping" was simple kidnapping, the sentence for which is 15 to life, rather than aggravated kidnapping (which gets you 25 to life).
Justice Humes does a great job explaining why all of the "risk" arguments raised by the prosecution do not work. Here's just one of the examples:
"The Attorney General claims that “having the larger space could have allowed [Waqa] to, for example, orally copulate the victim, which he would not have been able to accomplish in the smaller stall.” Although we disagree with Waqa that this factor is not met because there was no evidence he intended to commit such a crime, there is no substantial evidence that he would have been unable to orally copulate Doe or accomplish “whatever crime he wanted” in the small stall. (Ibid.) It may have been easier for him to sexually assault her in the larger space, but either way he had essentially the same opportunity to commit other crimes, particularly since the two stalls did not significantly differ in the opportunities they afforded for detection or escape."
All that makes sense. But the "risk" argument that popped into my head as a result of being in the larger stall was actually not one of the ones that Justice Humes analyzed or (apparently) that the prosecution raised at trial on appeal, so I thought I'd share it with you and see what you think.
Were I the victim, one of the (big?) reasons I wouldn't want to be in the larger disabled stall is because it's much easier for a guy to punch me into submission there. Mr. Waqa was a big guy: six foot tall and over 200 pounds. Could he and I both fit into the small stall and could he commit the rape there? Yes. Could he lock the door behind him? I agree with Justice Humes that, yeah, he probably could.
But it'd be cramped. Super cramped. Those bathroom stalls are narrow. As a result, were I in the smaller stall, I'm pretty sure the guys elbows and the like would be pressed up against the stall walls, or at least pretty near them. Which in turn would make it hard -- or, at least, harder -- for the guy to really wail on me and get a full punch in. The best he could do is probably just short blows rather than the real type of haymakers that he could probably easily get in were we in the larger disabled stall.
Which would matter to me. 'Cause no one wants to get hit, especially during a rape, but you especially don't want to get hit full force. Particularly from a guy who's 6' and 200+ pounds.
Would that be enough to make the forced movement from the smaller stall to the larger stall into an actual aggravated kidnapping? Would it "substantially increase" the risk of harm to the victim?
Whatcha think?
One final thing. I found it fascinating how much time Justice Humes felt compelled to devote to describing the relevant bathroom stalls. Here's what he says:
"Doe entered the women’s restroom, which has two stalls, a small one and a larger one for people with disabilities. The restroom’s outer door is made of open bars, and it was propped open that morning. Upon entering the restroom, one must turn right and go around a corner to reach the stalls.
The two stalls are partially formed by partitions that do not extend all the way to the floor or ceiling of the restroom. The small stall is a rectangle made up of a structural wall in the back, two partitions perpendicular to the back wall, one of which is shared with the larger stall, and a stall door parallel to the back wall. The large stall is a right-angled trapezoid made up of the partition it shares with the small stall, a stall door that continues in line with this partition, and three structural walls.4 One of these walls does not extend all the way to the floor or ceiling of the restroom, creating gaps to the outdoors. The two stalls’ doors form an “L,” so when exiting the small stall, the large stall’s door is immediately to one’s left. Like the stall partitions, both stall doors do not extend all the way to the floor or ceiling."
I'm sure all that is entirely accurate, and had the reader never been in a public restroom before, you can see why a detailed description in that regard would be required.
But most of us are pretty familiar with how these types of bathroom stalls work and look like, right? Justice Humes' description is pretty much spot on for virtually every one of the hundreds (thousands?) of public restrooms I've ever entered. There's a tiny stall (or several) and then there's a larger, wider and longer disabled stall at the end, against the wall. Yep. That's how it generally works.
POSTSCRIPT - For whatever it's worth, a healthy-sized reader sent me the following description of his empirical test of my intuition in this regard: "I’m over 6’5”+ and over two hundred, so taller and thinner than Waqa, but that would typically indicate his torso is a bit wider even if his arms were a tad shorter. So, I decided to test your theory on our office stalls. The results: jabs and uppercuts were just as easy in the smaller stall; cross/hooks I could throw, but constrained, and my guestimate is 80% of the force would be delivered. Haymakers? No chance – wacked my elbow, and I don’t see the radius of Waqa’s swing being that much less than mine for the reasons above. Backhand slaps, which seems appropriate to somebody like Waqa: far easier than a punch, no constraints. So there you have it – totally scientific anecdota supporting your position that the risk of a severe beating was enhanced by the stall move."
