55 Cal.App.5th 294
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Defendant Matthew Betts was convicted by a jury of multiple sexual offenses against two children: three counts of oral copulation/sexual penetration of a child under 11 (Pen. Code § 288.7(b)) and six counts of lewd acts on a child under 14 (§ 288(a)).
- Jury found true that Betts committed lewd acts against more than one victim (§ 667.61(e)(4)) and made several findings of substantial sexual conduct under § 1203.066(a)(8).
- Trial court admitted expert testimony on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS) to rehabilitate victims' credibility; testimony avoided percentage statistics.
- Sentencing: concurrent terms of 25 years-to-life on the § 288(a) counts under § 667.61(j)(2) and concurrent 15 years-to-life on the § 288.7 counts, for a total indeterminate term of 25 years-to-life.
- On appeal Betts challenged (1) admission of CSAAS evidence, (2) application of § 667.61(j)(2) to lewd acts on a child convictions, (3) ex post facto application of harsher sentences, (4) several substantial sexual conduct findings, and (5) errors in the abstract of judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Admission of CSAAS evidence | CSAAS admissible to rehabilitate credibility and explain delayed/reporting inconsistencies | Admission was irrelevant and prejudicial; counsel ineffective for not objecting | Forfeiture of contemporaneous objection; no ineffective assistance — CSAAS properly admitted to rehabilitate credibility (McAlpin rule applies) |
| 2. Applicability of § 667.61(j)(2) to § 288(a) lewd-acts convictions | § 288(a) (lewd acts on a child under 14) is listed in § 667.61(c)(8); where circumstances met, (j)(2) applies and mandates 25-to-life | (Betts) § 667.61(j)(2)'s phrase 'upon a victim who is a child under 14' would be surplusage if applied to § 288(a); thus § 288(a) should be exempt as in (j)(1) | Court applies plain meaning; (j)(2) covers § 288(a) convictions where specified circumstances exist — 25-to-life was authorized; refusal to read in an exemption |
| 3. Ex post facto challenge to sentences on certain counts | People: offenses occurred after A.B. 1844 effective date; no ex post facto problem | (Betts) jury didn’t specifically find offenses occurred after the amendment; harsher penalty applied retroactively | No ex post facto violation — information alleged dates after amendment and verdicts found guilt as alleged, so offenses occurred post-enactment |
| 4. Validity of substantial sexual conduct findings and abstract errors | AG concedes some findings and abstract errors should be corrected | (Betts) several substantial-conduct findings were improper; abstract inaccurate | Vacated six substantial sexual conduct findings (as conceded); ordered corrected abstract to reflect concurrent terms, include convictions and sentence lengths; otherwise judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gray, 58 Cal.4th 901 (Cal. 2014) (presumption that Legislature meant what it said; plain meaning governs statutory interpretation)
- People v. McAlpin, 53 Cal.3d 1289 (Cal. 1991) (CSAAS admissible to rehabilitate child-victim credibility; not admissible to prove abuse)
- People v. Julian, 34 Cal.App.5th 878 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (distinguished — problematic CSAAS testimony where expert cited statistics and case was credibility contest)
- People v. Guzman, 35 Cal.4th 577 (Cal. 2005) (court may not insert omitted statutory language; limits on rewriting statutes)
- People v. Valencia, 3 Cal.5th 347 (Cal. 2017) (statutory provisions should be harmonized and interpreted in context)
- People v. Merriman, 60 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2014) (contemporaneous objection rule; failure to object forfeits claim)
- People v. Cornett, 53 Cal.4th 1261 (Cal. 2012) (rule of lenity applies only when statutory interpretations are in equipoise)
- People v. Myles, 53 Cal.4th 1181 (Cal. 2012) (appellate courts may order correction of abstract of judgment to reflect trial court's oral pronouncement)