PEOPLE v.IRELAND PART - II
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>PEOPLE v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >PEOPLE v.IRELAND</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 9/8/10<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b<br /> ><u>CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION</u></b><sup>*</sup><b<br /> ><u></u></b><br /> <br/>IN<br /> THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/>FIFTH<br /> APPELLATE DISTRICT<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=360 valign=top ><br /> <br/>THE PEOPLE,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Plaintiff and<br /> Respondent,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> v.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>ANTHONY IRELAND,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Defendant and<br /> Appellant.<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> <td width=274 valign=top ><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>F057896<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>(Super.<br /> Ct. No. F07908591)<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b<br /> >OPINION</b><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >STORY CONTINUE <br /> FROM PART I….</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>As noted by appellant, in <i >People v. Vela</i> (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 237, 242, the court held that<br /> consent to sexual intercourse could be withdrawn before penetration but not<br /> after. In <i<br /> >In</i><i > re John Z.</i>, <i >supra</i>, 29<br /> Cal.4th 756, 763, our Supreme Court disagreed with that particular point in <i<br /> >Vela</i> and held that a woman could<br /> withdraw her consent to sexual intercourse at any time, even during copulation,<br /> as long as that withdrawal was clearly communicated. Appellant contends that the instruction, as<br /> given here, â€