People v. Garcia
247 Cal. App. 4th 1013
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Victim (Jane) disclosed in 2012 that her father, Vicente Ruiz Garcia, sexually abused her from about age 5 to 10; abuse occurred in Mexico, Chowchilla, and Watsonville.
- Police interviews (played at trial) and defendant’s admissions described multiple incidents; defendant admitted a limited number of nonforcible incidents but police and Jane described many forcible incidents.
- The second amended information charged 16 counts (four counts for each of four one-year periods from Sept. 28, 2007 to Sept. 27, 2011), each alleging forcible lewd acts on a child (Pen. Code § 288(b)(1)).
- At trial the jury convicted on all 16 counts; defendant was sentenced to 86 years; defendant appealed, raising sufficiency, suppression, expert testimony, and clerical-error issues.
- The court majority held that proof tying particular acts to the specific one-year periods was not required where counts alleged acts occurred “on or about” those periods; the court also found substantial evidence of force/duress and ordered clerical sentencing corrections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Prosecution) | Defendant's Argument (Garcia) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence as to charged one-year periods | Proof need only show acts occurred within the statute of limitations/charged general timeframe; variance was not fatal | Trial evidence failed to link specific acts to each one-year period; convictions unsupported | Affirmed: charging “on or about” periods meant precise dates not required; no insufficiency |
| Sufficiency re: force or duress | Victim’s testimony of threats, being grabbed, held, covered mouth supports forcible/duress element | Insufficient proof that acts were facilitated by force or duress | Affirmed: threats to harm mother and physical restraint supported forcible/duress element |
| Suppression of defendant’s statements | Statements were admissible (prosecution) | Trial court erred in denying suppression motion | Rejected (unpublished portion): no prejudicial error in admission |
| Admission of CSAAS expert testimony & other trial errors | Expert testimony was admissible and helpful | Admission prejudicial; other trial errors warrant reversal | Rejected (unpublished portions); judgment affirmed except clerical sentencing items |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Jones, 51 Cal.3d 294 (1990) (generic testimony may suffice to prove multiple molestation counts when time specifics are not material)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence: any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People v. Leal, 33 Cal.4th 999 (2004) (definition of duress in child molestation context)
- People v. Bolander, 23 Cal.App.4th 155 (1994) (force includes physical compulsion or restraint beyond contact inherent in the act)
- People v. Starkey, 234 Cal.App.2d 822 (1965) (charging an offense “on or about” a date need not be proved to exact date unless time is a material ingredient)
- People v. Peyton, 176 Cal.App.4th 642 (2009) (reaffirming that precise date need not be proved when time is not material)