80 Cal.App.5th 669
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background:
- Defendant Alvin Villete Caparaz was convicted by a jury of multiple sexual offenses (forcible lewd acts, aggravated sexual assault, sexual penetration by foreign object) against two victims who were his girlfriend’s nieces; sentence: 90 years to life.
- Allegations arose after one niece disclosed abuse at school; both victims separately disclosed; prosecution played a pretext phone call and recorded admissions made to law enforcement.
- Defense theory: victims’ memories were suggestible and defendant is psychologically vulnerable and susceptible to false confession; defense presented experts and psychological testing (including Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales (GSS)).
- Pretrial competency proceedings: court-appointed experts found defendant competent; Golden Gate Regional Center (GGRC) determined defendant ineligible for services; a GGRC social worker (Kitaoka) testified about the eligibility process at the competency trial.
- Trial court allowed general expert testimony on false confessions but excluded defense expert Winkel’s defendant-specific opinions and GSS results under Evidence Code §352; court also denied mistrials and other motions.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal found the exclusion of defendant-specific expert testimony an abuse of discretion but harmless, rejected defendant’s other claims (including Sanchez/Campos hearsay at competency trial, ineffective assistance, cruel and unusual punishment), and declined remand under AB 518 due to §667.61(h); judgment affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of GGRC testimony at competency trial (Sanchez/Campos) | Kitaoka’s testimony about GGRC steps and ineligibility was admissible lay testimony; did not convey non-testifying experts’ case-specific opinions. | Testimony and prosecutor’s questioning introduced impermissible case-specific hearsay from non-testifying GGRC evaluators in violation of Sanchez/Campos. | No Sanchez/Campos error; Kitaoka spoke from personal knowledge and did not relay Dr. Moore’s test results; any error harmless. |
| Exclusion of Winkel’s defendant-specific GSS results/opinion on suggestibility | Excluding defendant-specific GSS results was within court’s §352 discretion given other corroborating evidence and lack of coercive police tactics. | Winkel’s defendant-specific assessment and GSS scores were highly probative of reliability of admissions and should have been admitted; exclusion was abuse of discretion and violated right to present a defense. | Court abused discretion in excluding defendant-specific testimony under §352 but the error was harmless (no reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome). |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to object to victim’s mother’s outburst | No ineffective assistance: counsel’s tactical choice not to object was reasonable. | Failure to object to prosecutor’s question that triggered an emotional outburst was professionally unreasonable and prejudicial. | No ineffective assistance; counsel offered reasonable tactical justification and record does not show deficiency or prejudice. |
| Sentencing challenge and AB 518/§654 remand | Sentence under One Strike and consecutive terms valid; §667.61(h) prevents suspension/stay of a One Strike term, so AB 518 does not require remand. | AB 518 gives courts discretion under §654 to choose which term to impose; remand required to consider striking/staying the longer term. | No cruel and unusual punishment; remand not required because §667.61(h) bars suspension or stay of a One Strike sentence—trial court lacked discretion to stay the One Strike term. |
Key Cases Cited:
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (clarifies experts may state general field knowledge but not relay case-specific hearsay)
- People v. Campos, 32 Cal.App.4th 304 (expert may not introduce non-testifying expert’s reports/opinions)
- People v. Linton, 56 Cal.4th 1146 (discusses admissibility limits on false-confession expert testimony and §352)
- People v. Page, 2 Cal.App.4th 161 (permitting general false-confession expert testimony while limiting case-specific reliability opinions)
- People v. Stoll, 49 Cal.3d 1136 (experts may rely on standardized psychological tests)