CALCRIM No. 1080. Oral Copulation With Person Under 14 (Pen. Code, § 287(c)(1))
Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2023 edition)
Download PDF
(ii) Oral Copulation
1080.Oral Copulation With Person Under 14 (Pen. Code,
§ 287(c)(1))
The defendant is charged [in Count ] with oral copulation of a
person who was under the age of 14 and at least 10 years younger than
the defendant [in violation of Penal Code section 287(c)(1)].
To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must
prove that:
1. The defendant participated in an act of oral copulation with
another person;
AND
2. At the time of the act, the other person was under the age of 14
and was at least 10 years younger than the defendant.
Oral copulation is any contact, no matter how slight, between the mouth
of one person and the sexual organ or anus of another person.
Penetration is not required.
[It is not a defense that the other person may have consented to the act.]
[Under the law, a person becomes one year older as soon as the first
minute of his or her birthday has begun.]
New January 2006; Revised September 2020
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to give an instruction defining the elements of the
crime.
Give the bracketed paragraph that begins with “It is not a defense that” on request,
if there is evidence that the minor consented to the act. (See People v. Kemp (1934)
139 Cal.App. 48, 51 [34 P.2d 502].)
Give the bracketed paragraph about calculating age if requested. (Fam. Code,
§ 6500; In re Harris (1993) 5 Cal.4th 813, 849-850 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 373, 855 P.2d
391].)
AUTHORITY
• Elements. Pen. Code, § 287(c)(1).
• Oral Copulation Defined. Pen. Code, § 287(a); People v. Grim (1992) 9
Cal.App.4th 1240, 1242-1243 [11 Cal.Rptr.2d 884] [in context of lewd acts with
children].
822
• Minor’s Consent Not a Defense. See People v. Kemp (1934) 139 Cal.App. 48,
51 [34 P.2d 502] [in context of statutory rape].
LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES
• Oral Copulation With Minor Under 18. People v. Culbertson (1985) 171
Cal.App.3d 508, 516 [217 Cal.Rptr. 347]; People v. Jerome (1984) 160
Cal.App.3d 1087, 1097-1098 [207 Cal.Rptr. 199].
RELATED ISSUES
Mistake of Fact Defense Not Available
In People v. Olsen (1984) 36 Cal.3d 638, 649 [205 Cal.Rptr. 492, 685 P.2d 52], the
court held that the defendant’s mistaken belief that the victim was over 14 was no
defense to a charge of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14.
Attempted Oral Copulation is Not a Lesser Included Offense
People v. Mendoza (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 72, 84 [191 Cal.Rptr.3d 905].
SECONDARY SOURCES
2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Sex Offenses and
Crimes Against Decency, §§ 35-37, 178.
6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 142, Crimes
Against the Person, § 142.20[1][c], [3][b] (Matthew Bender).
Couzens & Bigelow, Sex Crimes: California Law and Procedure §§ 12:16, 12:17
(The Rutter Group).
SEX OFFENSES CALCRIM No. 1080
823
© Judicial Council of California.
