People v. Bray CA4/2
E071787
Cal. Ct. App.Sep 15, 2020Background
- Defendant Douglas Bray was convicted by a jury of multiple sex offenses against a long‑term ward/child in his household (counts included sexual penetration and oral copulation of a child ≤10, forcible lewd act, multiple lewd acts, and showing pornography).
- Victim (Jane Doe) alleged repeated abuse; family witnesses described "tickle time," preferential treatment/grooming, and occasions where defendant was alone with the child.
- Investigators played a recorded interview in which defendant made inculpatory statements (admissions and descriptions of sexual contact) but later testified at trial and denied many specific sexual acts, attributing some statements to stress, medication issues, or misremembering.
- Pretrial, defendant subpoenaed Jane Doe’s medical/psychiatric records; the trial court conducted an in camera review, sealed them, and declined disclosure. The sealed records are not part of the appellate record.
- At sentencing defendant received consecutive long terms (multiple 15‑years‑to‑life plus additional terms), was credited with 337 days’ pretrial custody (later found to be a math error), and fined/assessed restitution and fees.
- On appeal Bray challenged (1) denial of access to sealed medical/psychiatric records, (2) giving CALCRIM No. 361 (failure to explain or deny) to the jury, (3) imposition of fines/fees without an ability‑to‑pay hearing (Dueñas), and (4) presentence custody credit arithmetic; the court ordered correction of custody credits and otherwise affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court’s in camera handling / nondisclosure of Jane Doe’s medical/psychiatric records | Trial court properly reviewed records in camera and sealed them; sealed transcript shows meaningful review | Records might contain psychiatric/psychotic history material to impeach victim’s credibility; trial court erred by not disclosing | No abuse of discretion shown on the sealed‑transcript record; appellant failed to include underlying records in appellate record so issue resolved against him; further, victim admitted hallucinations at trial, so no prejudice shown |
| CALCRIM No. 361 (failure to explain or deny) instruction | Instruction was warranted because defendant failed to explain or deny several incriminating matters within his knowledge | Instruction improper because insufficient evidence he failed to explain or deny matters within his knowledge | Instruction properly given: defendant left unaddressed or failed to explain specific inculpatory facts (forcible kissing, chest touching, grooming/discipline differences, blackmail claim) so CALCRIM 361 applied |
| Ability‑to‑pay hearing before imposing fines/fees (Dueñas) | No remand needed: fines/assessments were properly imposed or harmless error | Dueñas requires an ability‑to‑pay hearing for assessments and possibly restitution; defendant lacked such a hearing | Restitution fine ($5,000) challenge forfeited for lack of timely objection; $840 in fees/assessments error under Dueñas was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given defendant’s earnings history and admitted assets |
| Presentence custody credit calculation | Trial court miscomputed custody credits | Defendant requested correction to total presentence custody credit | Court ordered correction: abstract of judgment amended from 337 to 339 days (additional 2 days); otherwise judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gurule, 28 Cal.4th 557 (general principle that psychiatric material is generally undiscoverable pretrial)
- People v. Abel, 53 Cal.4th 891 (materiality standard for disclosure of privileged records)
- People v. Prince, 40 Cal.4th 1179 (review standard for discovery rulings)
- People v. Rodriguez, 193 Cal.App.4th 360 (appellate burden to augment record with sealed materials)
- People v. Grandberry, 35 Cal.App.5th 599 (standards for giving CALCRIM No. 361)
- People v. Cortez, 63 Cal.4th 101 (failure to explain/deny and when instruction applies despite claimed lack of knowledge)
- People v. Taylor, 43 Cal.App.5th 390 (forfeiture of Dueñas challenge where no timely ability‑to‑pay hearing requested)
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas holding on necessity of ability‑to‑pay hearings for certain fines/assessments)
- People v. Jones, 36 Cal.App.5th 1028 (harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt analysis for Dueñas error)
- People v. Culpepper, 24 Cal.App.4th 1134 (procedures for correcting custody credit errors)