People v. Garcia CA2/4
B261526
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 19, 2016Background
- Louie Garcia was convicted by a jury of 10 counts of lewd acts on his granddaughter (Pen. Code § 288(a)) and sentenced to an aggregate 14 years.
- Victim B.G. (born 2000) testified to repeated sexual touching by Garcia from ages 10–14; she reported in May 2014 after confiding in a friend and school counselor.
- Two nieces (Amber and G.) testified to prior uncharged incidents of sexual touching by Garcia roughly 20–25 years earlier.
- Garcia denied all misconduct and presented family and community character witnesses; the trial court limited the number of defense character witnesses called.
- The trial court admitted the prior-acts evidence under Evidence Code § 1108 and ordered Garcia to submit to HIV testing under Penal Code § 1202.1; Garcia appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court limited defendant’s character witnesses | Limiting witnesses prevented cumulative, time-consuming testimony and preserved court control over evidence | Exclusion infringed Sixth Amendment right to present witnesses and impaired credibility defense | Affirmed: defendant forfeited precise claim by failing to make specific offers of proof; court did not abuse discretion under Evid. Code § 352 |
| Admission of prior sexual-misconduct testimony (Amber, G.) under Evid. Code § 1108 | Prior acts were admissible to show propensity in sex-offense prosecutions; probative value outweighed prejudice | Prior acts were remote and dissimilar; admission was prejudicial | Affirmed: prior incidents sufficiently similar and within same victim-age range; admission under § 1108 and § 352 was proper |
| HIV testing order under Penal Code § 1202.1 | Probable-cause finding supported testing because charged offense is a listed sexual offense | No actual evidence of transfer of blood/semen/other HIV-capable bodily fluid to victim; order unsupported | Reversed as to testing order: no substantial evidence of fluid transfer; order stricken and remanded for prosecution to present additional evidence if it chooses |
| Ineffective assistance claim for counsel’s failure to preserve excluded witnesses | N/A (defense alleged error) | Counsel did not make adequate offer of proof; no showing of prejudice | Affirmed: claimant failed to show prejudice or evidentiary record to support ineffective-assistance claim |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Falsetta, 21 Cal.4th 903 (1999) (§ 1108 permits admission of prior sexual offenses for propensity, subject to § 352 balancing)
- People v. Loy, 52 Cal.4th 46 (2011) (broad trial-court discretion under § 1108; prior-sex-offense evidence may be considered for many relevant purposes)
- People v. Butler, 31 Cal.4th 1119 (2003) (statutory requirements and consequences for court-ordered HIV testing under Penal Code § 1202.1)
- People v. Soto, 64 Cal.App.4th 966 (1998) (prior uncharged sexual acts admitted despite temporal remoteness where similar and victims in same age range)
- People v. Branch, 91 Cal.App.4th 274 (2001) (prior sexual misconduct properly admitted under § 1108 even after long lapse where conduct was remarkably similar)
- People v. Anderson, 25 Cal.4th 543 (2001) (to preserve appellate review of excluded testimony, defendant must make a specific offer of proof)