P v. Lodhia 5/14/03 CA2/8

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2003 » P v. Lodhia 5/14/03 CA2/8

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: B155137

Case Date: 07/30/2003

Preview:Filed 5/14/03 P. v. Lodhia CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HENISH HENRY LODHIA, Defendant and Appellant.

B155137 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA044913)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Terry L. Smerling, Judge. Affirmed. Ronald S. Smith for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Linda C. Johnson and James William Bilderback II, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________

Appellant Henish Henry Lodhia appeals from the judgment following his conviction of multiple sexual offenses against Karen K. After review, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Henish Henry Lodhia, who lived in the San Fernando Valley, and Karen K., who lived in Torrance, met in "California Flirts," an internet chat room. After communicating online, appellant e-mailed his personal 1-800 number to Karen and she called him. As they spoke on the phone, the conversation moved to their sexual histories. Appellant asked Karen the number of her past sexual partners; exaggerating, she answered three when in truth she had only one. Appellant told her most of his partners had been onenight stands. Feeling uncomfortable with their conversation's sexual tenor, Karen changed the subject. At the end of the phone call, appellant gave Karen his work number and asked her to call him the next day. The following day, Karen called appellant, but he was out to lunch. She called again after lunch and reached him. As they talked, appellant asked, "What's up, horn dog." Karen, who equated being a "horn dog" with being "horny," denied she was a "horn dog." Appellant asked whether they could meet that evening. Karen replied she could not because she planned to see a children's play at her friend's church. Appellant asked that she call him before she left for the play. Karen agreed and called appellant later in the day. Finding herself increasingly interested in appellant as they spoke, Karen chose not to go to the play. Instead, she agreed to drive to appellant's Pasadena office to go out for the evening. Karen arrived at appellant's work between 7:30 and 8:00 p.m. Upon seeing Karen arrive, appellant walked outside to greet her, locking the office front door behind him. He got into her car and directed her to the secure underground parking structure. They then returned to his office, ostensibly to validate her parking ticket. Once inside his office, he relocked the front door and they engaged in small talk, during which appellant

2

twice asked Karen what she wanted to do. Both times she said she did not care. After her second noncommittal response, appellant said, "Well, you know me; I'm having bad thoughts," by which he meant sexual thoughts. Karen told him "nothing's going to happen" and tried to divert his attention by asking about the Christmas tree in the office reception area. Appellant walked up to Karen and squeezed her buttocks. She pushed his hands away, saying "I don't have a butt." Appellant replied "let me see" and returned his hands to her backside. He then "shoved his hand up [her] crotch." Karen told him, "I don't want to do this." He removed his hand and "shushed" her. Looking into his "angry" eyes, Karen for the first time felt scared because she believed "something bad was going to happen." Holding Karen's forearm, appellant led her to an adjoining conference room. Once there, he pulled her pants and underwear down to mid-thigh and inserted a finger in her vagina. As he did so, Karen said "no" or "I don't want to do this." Holding her arms, appellant with a "slight shove" pushed her back to a sitting position in a chair. Afraid appellant might hurt her, Karen removed her jacket and kicked off her boots to make it easier for him to take off her pants. He pulled her legs out from under her and placed his mouth on her vagina. Grabbing the chair's armrests to try to sit up, Karen said "Oh, my God" out of disbelief at what was happening. After a couple of seconds, appellant stood Karen up and switched places with her. With his pants already down, he "yanked" her down toward him in the chair and asked for oral sex, saying "Come on. Go down." She declined to perform oral sex, saying she had gum in her mouth. He stuck his hand out for her to spit out her gum but she refused. He then took her hand and placed it on his penis, but she pulled back saying "I don't want to do this." Appellant stood up and turned Karen toward a table next to the chair. He pushed her against the table, leaned her back, and pulled her legs out, making her lie back. Karen repeated "I don't want to do this." He inserted his penis inside her vagina. Karen pulled herself up onto her elbows and asked whether he had a condom. As she did so, his
3

penis slipped out from her. He said he did not, but that "he could control it." He then reinserted himself, asking whether she "liked it." She replied, "No, you're hurting me" and in response he slowed down. Asking where she wanted him to ejaculate, she said not inside her. He asked whether he should ejaculate on her stomach. She said yes and he did so when he climaxed. Upon finishing, appellant pulled his pants up and left the room to get Karen a napkin to clean herself. After giving her a napkin, he again left the room for a couple of minutes. Wanting to leave, Karen quickly dressed. She then sat down in a chair and started shaking "because [she] couldn't believe what had happened." She waited for appellant to return so she could ask him why he had done what he did. When he came back to the room, she covered her face because she felt she was about to cry. He asked whether she was ashamed of what she did. She answered she felt ashamed because "I should have never went there." Saying "I want to go home," she moved toward leaving the room. Appellant said he wanted to take her out for the evening, but she instead excused herself to go to the bathroom. In the bathroom, Karen noticed her vagina was bleeding. When she rejoined appellant, she told him he had made her bleed. He replied it must have been his finger. She asked him why he had done what he did, to which he said "because I was horny." He then asked whether she wanted to have sex again. Knowing he had no condom, she said only if he had a condom, hoping he would leave to retrieve one thus permitting her to leave, too. Appellant dropped his suggestion and instead validated her parking ticket before they returned to their cars. As they left the office, Karen surreptitiously took appellant's business card because she did not know his last name. They went to the parking garage and appellant called a security supervisor to let them out. They drove out of the parking structure and went their separate ways. That evening and the following day, Karen recounted the night's events for several friends and acquaintances, one of whom was a police detective. Learning from them that she had been date-raped, she decided to report the incident to the police.

4

The next day, Pasadena police officers went to appellant's office. He agreed to go with them for questioning at the station house. During his interview, he admitted he had date-raped Karen. At the suggestion of police, he wrote two letters, one to Karen and the second "To Whom It May Concern," to express his remorse. Karen's letter stated, "This statement is given freely and voluntarily by Henish Lodhia. [

Download P v. Lodhia 5/14/03 CA2/8.pdf