People v. Austin
161 Cal. Rptr. 3d 883
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- C.L. (14-year-old at the time), born in China, is Austin's stepdaughter who came to the U.S. in 2005.
- During her mother’s absence in 2009, Austin asked C.L. to sleep in his bed; massages progressed to sexual touching and porn viewing.
- On four occasions, Austin orally copulated C.L.; she feared his anger and threat of returning to China if she resisted.
- C.L. testified she did not want the acts but experienced orgasms; she did not enjoy them.
- Austin was charged with multiple offenses, with duress (prosecution theory) vs reasonable belief in consent (defense theory).
- The trial court initially ruled orgasms were not probative of consent, later allowed the issue after the door was opened by the prosecution’s opening statement and related testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prosecution expert was qualified to testify about orgasms in a child during abuse. | Austin argues the expert is not qualified. | Medley is qualified by 25 years’ experience with sexual assault victims and relevant training. | Yes; the court did not abuse discretion in admitting the testimony. |
| Whether CSAAS testimony exceeded the expert’s scope or qualifications. | Austin argues the CSAAS expert exceeded expertise. | Medley’s background supports her testimony on CSAAS and physiological responses. | No abuse of discretion; testimony within permissible scope. |
| Whether the pretext phone calls were properly admitted. | Austin contends admission of the pretext calls was improper evidence. | Admissible as probative to the defense theory. | Preserved error claim? (Court affirmed admission as within evidentiary discretion.) |
| Whether CALCRIM No. 1193 and CSAAS testimony affected credibility determinations. | Austin contends the instruction misled jurors about credibility. | Instruction and testimony were appropriately reconciled with evidence. | No reversible error in instruction handling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Curtis v. State, 236 Ga. 362, 223 S.E.2d 721 (Ga. 1976) (rape evidence relevance of orgasm to consent disputed)
- People v. Davenport, 11 Cal.4th 1171 (Cal. 1995) (expert qualifications; specialized medical opinion required)
- People v. Fierro, 1 Cal.4th 173 (Cal. 1992) (purpose limits on ballistics/medical testimony; qualifications)
- People v. Catlin, 26 Cal.4th 81 (Cal. 2001) (standard for reviewing expert admission; abuse of discretion)