People v. Argumedo CA6, H047538

Background

Defendant Eric Argumedo (stepfather) was convicted by jury of multiple sex offenses against his stepdaughter (counts: six aggravated sexual assaults of a child under 14, two forcible lewd acts on a child under 14, four forcible rapes of a minor 14+); sentenced to 90 years to life plus 48 years determinate; judgment affirmed with clerical corrections ordered.
Victim ("Doe") testified the abuse began at about age 11 and continued into adulthood; prosecution emphasized defendant’s long‑term control and domination (phone monitoring, location tracking, threats, differential treatment of children).
Key trial evidence included: testimony about one incident where defendant hit his biological daughter with a belt (to force Doe to answer), an officer‑arranged pretext phone call in which defendant spoke to Doe, expert testimony on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS), and testimony by Doe’s boyfriend that he feared defendant would hurt him or his family.
Defense theory: Doe fabricated or exaggerated the allegations to escape a controlling relationship and to preserve a romantic relationship; defense called no percipient witnesses and defendant did not testify.
On appeal Argumedo challenged four evidentiary rulings: admission of the belt‑punishment testimony, admission of the pretext call, admission of CSAAS testimony, and admission of the boyfriend’s fear testimony.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of testimony that defendant hit his biological daughter	Evidence showed duress/control over Doe and explained why she delayed reporting; relevant to relationship dynamics	Irrelevant or overly prejudicial under Evid. Code §352; incident occurred when Doe was an adult (attenuated)	Admitted. Court found incident probative of domination/duress and not unduly prejudicial; no §352 abuse of discretion.
Admission of pretext call audio	Defendant’s own statements are admissible under the party‑opponent exception (Evid. Code §1220); call shows control, duress, and context for consent/denials	Call contained no admissions; some language/tone irrelevant and prejudicial	Admitted. §1220 covers all party statements (not just admissions); statements probative of continuing control; §352 not violated.
Admission of CSAAS expert testimony	CSAAS helps dispel juror misconceptions about delayed disclosure and behavior of abuse victims; admissible where credibility issues exist	Argued on appeal that CSAAS admission was erroneous (arguments not developed on record)	Affirmed. Defendant forfeited appellate challenge by failing to identify record passages or develop argument; CSAAS generally admissible on credibility/education grounds.
Admission of boyfriend’s testimony that he feared defendant would hurt him/family	Explains boyfriend’s texts, anger, and motive for urging Doe to report; rebuts suggestion Doe fabricated claims to please boyfriend	Irrelevant and unduly prejudicial; only paints defendant negatively	Admitted (or harmless if error). Court found testimony probative to explain witness behavior and to rebut fabrication theory; any prejudice did not substantially outweigh probative value; not reasonably probable result would differ.

Key Cases Cited

People v. Doolin, 45 Cal.4th 390 (discusses §352 prejudice standard and limits)
People v. Williams, 16 Cal.4th 153 (trial court need not expressly state §352 balancing if record shows consideration)
People v. Rodriguez, 58 Cal.4th 587 (party‑opponent statements under Evid. Code §1220 are not limited to formal admissions)
People v. McAlpin, 53 Cal.3d 1289 (CSAAS testimony admissible to correct juror misconceptions)
People v. Patino, 26 Cal.App.4th 1737 (CSAAS pertinent when victim credibility at issue)
People v. Horning, 34 Cal.4th 871 (clarifies scope of party‑opponent hearsay exception)
People v. Guzman, 8 Cal.5th 673 (failure to develop appellate argument can result in forfeiture)
People v. Richardson, 43 Cal.4th 959 (harmless‑error / miscarriage of justice standard for erroneously admitted evidence)