People v. Doan, H052907

Background

A jury convicted Doan of six sexual offenses against his daughter Doe, including four forcible lewd-act counts, attempted forcible rape, and forcible sexual penetration. 1
The information alleged the acts occurred from 2007 to 2015 for counts 1-4 and from 2017 to 2018 for counts 5-6, and alleged trust and vulnerability aggravators on each count. 2
Doe testified Doan began molesting her in elementary school, repeatedly touching and licking her breasts over many years while he was her primary caretaker and disciplinarian. 3
Doe reported the abuse after family conflict in 2017 and later to police in 2023, and the jury convicted Doan on all counts while the court found the aggravators true. 4
The trial court sentenced Doan to 52 years, including consecutive upper terms of 10 years on counts 1-4 and 8 years on count 6. 5
On appeal, Doan challenged limits on cross-examination, CALCRIM 3501, upper-term sentencing, and ex post facto punishment on counts 1-4. 6
The Court of Appeal rejected the evidentiary and instructional claims, but agreed the 10-year terms on counts 1-4 violated ex post facto principles and remanded for resentencing. 7

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Cross-examination on class cutting and grades 8	Doan said school misconduct showed Doe's motive to fabricate.	Doan said the court wrongly limited bias impeachment.	Restriction was within discretion and not prejudicial. 9
CALCRIM 3501 unanimity instruction 10	Doan argued generic testimony did not justify the modified unanimity instruction.	Doan said jurors could disagree about which acts occurred.	Instruction was proper under Jones and harmless. 11
Ex post facto sentencing on counts 1-4 12	Doan and the Attorney General agreed 10-year terms exceeded the prior triad.	Doan argued the 10-year upper terms were unconstitutional.	10-year terms violated ex post facto law; sentence vacated. 13
Upper-term aggravators on counts 1-4 14	Doan said vulnerability and trust were elements of the offense.	The People said the aggravators exceeded the crime's elements.	Aggravators were proper and may support upper terms on remand. 15

Key Cases Cited

People v. Villa, 55 Cal.App.5th 1042 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (cross-examination on bias may be limited under Evidence Code section 352 16)
People v. Sánchez, 63 Cal.4th 411 (Cal. 2016) (confrontation clause is not violated by excluding marginal impeachment 17)
People v. Anthony, 32 Cal.App.5th 1102 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (appellant bears burden to show evidentiary error 18)
People v. Ledesma, 39 Cal.4th 641 (Cal. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for impeachment rulings 19)
People v. Brooks, 3 Cal.5th 1 (Cal. 2017) (review the ruling, not the court's reasoning 20)
People v. Jones, 51 Cal.3d 294 (Cal. 1990) (modified unanimity instruction permitted for generic child-molestation testimony 21)
People v. Fernandez, 216 Cal.App.4th 540 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (explains CALCRIM 3501 as a modified unanimity instruction 22)
People v. Russo, 25 Cal.4th 1124 (Cal. 2001) (jury must unanimously agree on the specific crime 23)
Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (U.S. 2020) (state and federal constitutions require unanimous verdicts 24)
People v. Riel, 22 Cal.4th 1153 (Cal. 2000) (unanimity instruction required sua sponte when warranted 25)
People v. Hiscox, 136 Cal.App.4th 253 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (ex post facto violation where increased punishment applied to preamendment conduct 26)
People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (Cal. 2018) (appellate court may vacate sentence and remand for full resentencing 27)
People v. Lynch, 16 Cal.5th 730 (Cal. 2024) (upper term may rest on a single properly proven aggravating circumstance 28)
People v. Castorena, 51 Cal.App.4th 558 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (facts exceeding the crime's minimum elements may aggravate sentence 29)
People v. Burbine, 106 Cal.App.4th 1250 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (sentencing factors are not elements unless required by the statutory definition 30)
People v. DeHoyos, 57 Cal.4th 79 (Cal. 2013) (particular vulnerability may rest on relationship and abuse of trust 31)
People v. Dancer, 45 Cal.App.4th 1677 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (particular vulnerability depends on the total milieu of the offense 32)
People v. Martinez, 105 Cal.App.5th 178 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024) (duress under section 288(b)(1) is objectively measured 33)
People v. Cardenas, 21 Cal.App.4th 927 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (defines fear for lewd-act sentencing and offense purposes 34)
People v. Soto, 51 Cal.4th 229 (Cal. 2011) (duress may be found without focusing on the victim's subjective response 35)