115 Cal.App.5th 92
Cal. Ct. App.2025Background
- Defendant Raul Garcia lived with his long-term partner and multiple children; allegations of sexual abuse by Garcia spanned years and involved his partner’s daughters (Doe 1, Doe 2, Stepdaughter K.) and three of his sister’s children.
- After earlier investigations (2015 CALICO interviews; a temporary removal and a recantation by Stepdaughter K.), Doe 1 and Doe 2 reported abuse in 2018; Garcia was arrested and charged with multiple lewd acts, forcible lewd acts, oral copulation, and penetration counts involving Doe 1 and Doe 2.
- At the 2022 jury trial, the People presented testimony from Doe 1, Doe 2, Stepdaughter K., and three of Sister’s children describing uncharged prior acts; an expert on child sexual abuse and SART exam evidence were also presented.
- The defense presented limited character witnesses and challenged credibility; the jury convicted Garcia on most counts and he received a 54-years-to-life sentence (two counts of intercourse/sodomy were dismissed after hung jury on those counts).
- On appeal Garcia raised multiple claims: Batson/Wheeler-type challenge under Code Civ. Proc. § 231.7 to the People’s peremptory strike of a Black juror; admission of Evidence Code § 1108 uncharged-act evidence; admission of prior statements under Evid. Code § 1360; prosecutorial misconduct in closing; unanimity and CSAAS instruction issues; and cumulative error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peremptory strike under § 231.7 (Batson-style) | People: strike based on youth, limited life experience, and juror’s skepticism re: a publicized sexual-assault matter (Deshaun Watson). | Garcia: strike was racially motivated; court failed to properly review reasons and may have applied wrong burden. | Court: Overruled objection — prosecutor gave race-neutral reasons; totality of circumstances showed no substantial likelihood race was a factor; defendant forfeited some burden arguments. |
| Admission of uncharged sexual-act evidence under Evid. Code § 1108/§ 352 | People: testimony from Stepdaughter K. and Sister’s children was highly probative of propensity and explained delayed/nonreporting and lack of disclosure among victims; admitted with limits. | Garcia: evidence was cumulative, remote, confusing, prejudicial, and time-consuming; trial court abused discretion. | Court: No abuse of discretion — high probative value, similarities to charged acts, limiting measures applied; any alleged error as to specific testimony was forfeited or not prejudicial. |
| Admission of prior statements under Evid. Code § 1360 | People: statements admitted as reliable under § 1360 and other hearsay rules; adequate procedure followed. | Garcia: court failed to hold required reliability hearing or make requisite findings; admission violated confrontation/due process. | Court: Arguments forfeited for lack of specific objection below; in any event, any error regarding Niece L. was not prejudicial. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (Griffin and burden-shifting) | People: prosecutor properly prefaced comments with standard instruction about defendant’s right not to testify and permissibly noted absence of logical defense witnesses. | Garcia: prosecutor’s prefatory remark violated Griffin and later comments suggested defendant had duty to produce evidence. | Court: No misconduct — repetition of jury instruction permissible (Tafoya); comments on failure to call logical witnesses were proper and did not shift burden. |
| Unanimity instruction and age element for § 288.7 counts | People: CALCRIM No. 3501 and No. 1128 instructed jurors to agree on acts and required proof victim was ≤10 for relevant counts. | Garcia: instruction allowed conviction for acts in 2013 after Doe 2 turned 11, violating age element. | Court: No error — instructions read together required jurors to find the statutory age element for each act; jurors presumed able to follow instructions. |
| CSAAS expert testimony and CALCRIM No. 1193 instruction | People: expert testimony explained typical child-victim behaviors; instruction limited use to assessing believability and inconsistency. | Garcia: expert exceeded scope (vouched, offered impermissible profile evidence, cited extra-record studies); instruction argumentative/incorrect. | Court: Most objections forfeited; permissible expert testimony and non-profiling perpetrator remarks allowed; CALCRIM No. 1193 correctly states law and is not prejudicial. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Jimenez, 99 Cal.App.5th 534 (discussing § 231.7 totality review of peremptory strikes)
- People v. Merriman, 60 Cal.4th 1 (presumption favoring admission under Evidence Code § 1108)
- People v. McAlpin, 53 Cal.3d 1289 (limits and purpose of CSAAS testimony)
- People v. Tafoya, 42 Cal.4th 147 (prosecutor may reiterate instruction about defendant’s right not to testify)
- People v. Miramontes, 189 Cal.App.4th 1085 (Evid. Code § 1108 analysis and probative value of similar uncharged acts)
- People v. Dworak, 11 Cal.5th 881 (§ 352 balancing factors for uncharged sexual-offense evidence)
- People v. Lapenias, 67 Cal.App.5th 162 (CSAAS testimony boundaries; vouching prohibition)
- People v. Gonzales, 16 Cal.App.5th 494 (upholding CALCRIM No. 1193 regarding CSAAS instruction)
- People v. Robbie, 92 Cal.App.4th 1075 (example of impermissible profile testimony)