People v. Fortin
12 Cal. App. 5th 524
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- Pedro Fortin was convicted of multiple child molestation and false imprisonment counts based on testimony from two girls who delayed disclosure and described repeated sexual contact.
- Prosecution introduced expert testimony on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS) to explain delayed disclosure and related behaviors; court gave a limiting instruction when CSAAS was used to explain credibility, not to prove conduct.
- Fortin sought to introduce results from the Abel Assessment for Sexual Interest (the Abel test) through his expert to show lack of sexual interest in children; the trial court excluded the Abel test results after an Evidence Code section 402 hearing.
- The trial court permitted defense expert opinion that Fortin lacks sexual interest in prepubescent children based on clinical evaluation, but not testimony about Abel test performance, because the Abel test was found unreliable and not generally accepted by the scientific community.
- Fortin was sentenced to consecutive 15-years-to-life terms on four counts (aggregate 60 years to life); the appellate court affirmed convictions but remanded for resentencing on counts 3 and 4 so the trial court could state reasons for consecutive sentences on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Abel test results at guilt phase | Abel results are probative of lack of sexual interest and thus relevant to guilt | Abel test is scientifically unreliable, not generally accepted, and intended for post-conviction monitoring; admitting it would mislead jury | Exclusion affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; Abel test lacks sufficient scientific acceptance and reliable foundation |
| Use of CSAAS expert testimony | CSAAS explains why child victims delay disclosure; admissible to explain behavioral patterns | CSAAS improperly bolsters victims and opines on ultimate issue of guilt | Admissible narrowly: CSAAS may be used to explain delayed disclosure/behavior once credibility is at issue, with limiting instruction |
| Confrontation / due process claim from excluding Abel test | Exclusion violated defendant's confrontation and due process rights by barring exculpatory evidence | Defendant forfeited constitutional claim by not objecting on those grounds at trial; exclusion is within trial court's gatekeeping discretion | Constitutional claims forfeited; exclusion does not violate due process when testimony lacks proper foundation |
| Sentencing — consecutive terms | (Implicit) consecutive sentences lawful given findings | Fortin argued sentencing record inadequate | Convictions affirmed; sentencing remanded so trial court can state on record reasons for consecutive vs concurrent terms for counts 3 and 4 |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Leahy, 8 Cal.4th 587 (Cal. 1994) (new scientific techniques require demonstration of general acceptance/reliability)
- People v. Stoll, 49 Cal.3d 1136 (Cal. 1989) (expert may rely on standardized tests with proper foundation for mental-state opinions)
- Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California, 55 Cal.4th 747 (Cal. 2012) (trial court may exclude expert testimony based on unreliable foundational material)
- People v. Lucas, 60 Cal.4th 153 (Cal. 2014) (trial court has broad discretion to assess admissibility and reliability of expert evidence)
- United States v. Birdsbill, 243 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (D. Mont. 2003) (Abel test found highly unreliable and inadmissible)
- State v. Victor O., 301 Conn. 163 (Conn. 2011) (Abel test not sufficiently reliable for guilt-phase admission)