People v. Chenelle
4 Cal. App. 5th 1255
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Douglas Chenelle, a longtime ceramics instructor and caretaker at Milestones Development, was charged with four counts of committing a lewd act on a dependent adult by a caretaker (Pen. Code § 288(c)(2)); jury convicted him of one count (June 25, 2013) and acquitted on three.
- Victim T.P. is an adult with moderate intellectual disability and cerebral palsy who requires assistance with toileting and uses a wheelchair; he attended the day program for years and had ongoing contact with defendant.
- Staff supervisor Valerie Frazier found the ceramics room barred and saw defendant with his hand inside T.P.’s pants, fondling T.P.’s penis; T.P. later told police defendant had rubbed his penis and made sexual comments that made him feel "weird."
- Defendant claimed he was merely fixing T.P.’s pants and pointed to prior benign-assistance observations by staff and character testimony.
- At trial, defense requested an instruction on simple battery (Pen. Code § 242) as a lesser necessarily included offense of § 288(c)(2); the court refused and defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether simple battery (§ 242) is a lesser necessarily included offense of lewd conduct on a dependent adult by a caretaker (§ 288(c)(2)) | Battery is not a lesser included offense because Shockley and Robinson hold that when offenses require essentially identical proof or separate elements, neither is a lesser included offense | Shockley should not control because it concerned child victims under 14 and relied on the special harm to children; dependent-adult context differs | Battery is not a lesser necessarily included offense of § 288(c)(2); Shockley/Robinson rationale applies to dependent-adult lewd acts and battery instruction was properly denied |
| Whether a battery instruction was required on the facts (substantial-evidence test) | Not required because evidence showed lewd intent—stroking penis, sexual comments, barred room—so no substantial evidence defendant was guilty only of battery | Trial court should have instructed on battery as a potential non-lewd offensive touching | No substantial evidence supported conviction of only battery; omission harmless as jury had to acquit if it found only innocent caretaking |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Shockley, 58 Cal.4th 400 (Cal. 2013) (holding battery is not a lesser included offense of lewd conduct with a child because either offenses overlap completely or require distinct elements, implicating notice and proof issues)
- People v. Robinson, 63 Cal.4th 200 (Cal. 2016) (applies Shockley reasoning to hold related sexual-offense statutes are separate offenses when proof overlaps)
- People v. Birks, 19 Cal.4th 108 (Cal. 1998) (explaining duty to instruct on lesser necessarily included offenses when substantial evidence supports only the lesser)
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (Cal. 1998) (defining substantial-evidence standard for lesser-included-offense instructions)
- People v. Ochoa, 19 Cal.4th 353 (Cal. 1998) (instructional error and substantial-evidence principles)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (harmless-error standard referenced for prejudice analysis)