SB 145

It's illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor in California. But currently, these "statutory rape" cases are treated differently based on the kind of sex involved.

If an adult has vaginal intercourse with a minor, the trial judge has discretion to put the adult on the sex offender registry. If the case involves anal or oral sex, the court has no such discretion and the defendant is subject to automatic sex offender registration.

There is currently a bill pending in the state legislature, SB 145, that would remove the disparity and eliminate automatic sex offender registration in the latter situation.

The author and those supporting the bill say it's necessary because the current law discriminates against the LGBTQ community by punishing gay sex more harshly. If a 19 year-old male has sex with his 17 year-old girlfriend, the judge has the discretion to keep the boy off the registry, whereas if a 19 year-old male has sex with his 17 year-old boyfriend, registration is automatic.

The bill is currently on Governor Newsom's desk awaiting his decision.

The bill applies where:

  • The minor is between 14-17 years old.
  • The adult is within 10 years of the minor's age.
  • The adult is found to have engaged in oral or anal sex with the minor.

Watch my friend, David Shapiro, explain:

Related case summaries

The provision requiring mandatory sex offender registration for those who engage in oral copulation with 16 or 17 year-olds violated equal protection since people who engage in intercourse with same-aged minors are subject to discretionary registration. The mandatory lifetime sex offender registration for those who engage in unlawful voluntary oral copulation with a minor who is 16 or 17 years old (Penal Code section 288(a)(1) violates equal protection principles because those who engage in unlawful voluntary intercourse with a same-aged minor (Penal Code section 261.5) are subject to discretionary sex offender registration. The matter was remanded with directions to remove the mandatory registration requirement and determine whether defendant was subject to discretionary registration under section 290, subd.(a)(2)(e).id: 18941
The trial court did not err by failing to instruct on unlawful intercourse with a minor as a lesser included offense of forcible rape.Defendant was convicted of multiple counts relating to sexual misconduct involving an underage girl. He argued the trial court had a duty to instruct on statutory rape as a lesser included offense of forcible rape. However, unlawful intercourse with a minor is not a lesser included offense of forcible rape even under the accusatory pleading test. id: 24358

About Pat Ford

Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.

Case of the Day

The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.

Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245