Page 1
Father Threatening Daughter With Retribution From God Is Sufficient Duress for Rape—C.A.
Opinion Says Fact That Girl Did Not Object Was Not Legal Bar Where Defendant Told Family That He Was ‘Son of God,’ Indoctrinated Children That Disobeying Parent Would Anger Almighty
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has upheld the forcible rape conviction of a father, whose teenage daughter did not object to the sexual act, where family members testified that the defendant told his children that he was the “son of God” and that they would anger the Almighty if they disobeyed him, finding that his years of indoctrination created a sufficient threat of retribution to qualify as “duress” under the Penal Code.
At issue is Penal Code §261(a)(2), which provides that rape is “an act of sexual intercourse” which is “accomplished against a person’s will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another.”
Subdivision (b)(1) defines “duress” as:
“[A] direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted. The total circumstances, including the age of the victim, and the victim’s relationship to the defendant, are factors to consider in appraising the existence of duress.”
In an opinion, filed Monday and authored by Justice Maurice Sanchez, the court said:
“In this unusual case, we hold a threat of retribution sufficient to support a finding duress under Penal Code section 261, subdivisions (a)(2) and (b)(1), can be purely psychological, coming not at the hand of the defendant, but rather by God, as taught to the victim by the defendant. Here, substantial evidence shows that over years of indoctrination, Defendant instilled in [his oldest daughter] the beliefs that he was the son of God, obeying a parent was a commandment from the Bible, disobeying a commandment would get you in trouble with or anger God, and having sex with her father was permitted by the Bible. The threat—direct and implied—of divine retribution if [she] did not have sexual intercourse with Defendant constituted duress sufficient to uphold the convictions for forcible rape.”
Rape Conviction
Appealing his conviction was Benny Townes, who was convicted of forcibly raping his oldest daughter, identified as “Jane Doe 1,” when she was 16 years old and committing lewd and lascivious acts against his younger daughter when she was 13 and 14 years of age, and other related crimes. Following a jury trial, Riverside Superior Court Judge Matthew C. Peratoni sentenced Townes to 150 years to life in prison.
On appeal, he contends that the convictions arising from his relationship with his older daughter must be reversed, along with sentencing enhancement applicable when there are multiple victims, because the evidence admitted at trial does not support a finding that the acts were accomplished by means of force or duress.
At trial, Jane Doe 1 testified that she believed she had no choice but to submit to her father because he had instructed her that obeying your parents is a biblical command and that she would “get in trouble by God” if she disobeyed. She said that she gave weight to the defendant’s claim that he was “the son of God” because he seemed to have extensive knowledge of the Bible.
Townes used a biblical account found in Genesis 19—where it is recorded that Lot’s two daughters got him drunk in order to seduce him and secure pregnancies during a time of isolation—in order to tell Jane Doe 1 that sex between a father and daughter is morally permissible.
Jane Doe 1 became pregnant by her father in March 2019.
Monday’s opinion, joined in by Presiding Justice Kathleen O’Leary and Justice Martha K. Gooding, affirms the judgment of conviction.
Evidence of Duress
Sanchez wrote:
“Defendant argues that the prosecution’s theory…was he committed rape by means of duress, and not by force, violence, menace, or fear, and that substantial evidence does not support a finding of duress. We disagree. Evidence of the total circumstances of the present case are sufficient to uphold a finding that Defendant used duress by directly and impliedly threatening retribution from God if Jane Doe 1 disobeyed his requests to engage in sexual intercourse with him.”
Noting to the statutory definition of “duress,” the jurist continued:
“A defendant’s position of authority is a factor in considering duress….Defendant was an authority figure not only by virtue of being Jane Doe 1’s father, but also because he repeatedly told Jane Doe 1 and his other children that he was the son of God. When Defendant raped Jane Doe 1 she was a minor and 23 years younger than he was.” He reasoned that Jane Doe 1’s testimony that her father did not hurt or threaten her “does not foreclose coercion by duress, for ‘[t]he very nature of duress is psychological coercion.’ ”
Pointing to case law finding duress in circumstances where a child was told she would be breaking up the family if she objected to the abuse, he concluded that “Jane Doe 1 underwent severe and long-term psychological coercion from Defendant’s indoctrination and direct and implied threats of adverse consequences at the hands of God if she disobeyed him.”
Unpersuaded by Townes’ argument that there was no evidence that he threatened to personally enact revenge on the victim if she did not comply, Sanchez said:
“It does not matter whether the threatened retribution was to be carried out by the Defendant, another person, or the Almighty for there to be duress….What creates duress is the threat that adverse consequences will be inflicted by some source if the target of the threat does not acquiesce.”
He continued:
“A reasonable 15 or 16-year-old girl of ordinary susceptibility who had been brought up in a strict and religious home such as Defendant’s, had limited access to the outside world, whose…father used corporal punishment, was taught and trained by her…father (who said he was the son of God) to believe that obeying him was a biblical commandment, was told by her father that violating a commandment would make God angry and possibly lead to hell, and was taught that sex between a father and his daughter happened in the Bible, could be coerced by her father into acquiescing to engaging in sexual intercourse with him.”
Distinguishing the 2002 Sixth District case of People v. Espinoza, in which the court held that a finding of duress requires a direct or implied threat by the perpetrator, he wrote:
“Whether we agree or disagree with the holding of Espinoza is not determinative. The facts here are readily distinguishable. In the present case Jane Doe 1 was subject to psychological coercion, and there was evidence of express and implied threats made by Defendant and those threats at least partly impelled Jane Doe 1 to have sex with him.”
In a footnote, Sanchez commented:
“Defendant’s misuse of the Bible calls to mind Shakespeare’s often-quoted adage, ‘[t]he devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.’….Defendant misconstrued and misused both the Commandment to ‘Honor thy Father and thy Mother’ and the story of Lot and his daughters for the purpose of coercing Jane Doe 1 into engaging in sexual intercourse with him.”
The case is People v. Townes, 2025 S.O.S. 353.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company