People v. Garcia CA5
F077721
| Cal. Ct. App. | Dec 10, 2020Background
- Defendant Rex Garcia, a retired law-enforcement officer, was convicted by jury of continuous sexual abuse of his step‑granddaughter (born 2002) and sentenced to six years.
- Victim (J.) lived in Garcia’s home from about age 7; she disclosed abuse after her 13th birthday, alleging multiple incidents over several years (including waking to being touched and an instance of missing pajama bottoms). A father‑placed camera recorded Garcia entering her bedroom but captured no explicit misconduct.
- Garcia denied the allegations; he testified he routinely checked locks and entered J.’s room for safety; family and friends testified to his good character with children.
- The prosecution called David Love as an expert in Child Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CAAS) and neurophysiology of trauma. Love testified about typical CAAS behaviors and gave statistics (e.g., 74% delay disclosure, 94% preexisting relationship, and that only "one percent" of reports are false), used anecdotes and language mirroring facts of this case, and urged jurors not to disregard delayed or inconsistent disclosures.
- Defense counsel lodged no objections to Love’s testimony. The trial court instructed with CALCRIM No. 1193 limiting CAAS use to evaluating whether the victim’s conduct was inconsistent with molestation.
- On appeal the court held the evidence was sufficient to support conviction but reversed for ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to object to improperly admitted, prejudicial expert testimony; remand permits retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict under Penal Code §288.5 (continuous sexual abuse) | Evidence (J.’s testimony, repeated touching over years, removal of clothing, timing) supports elements (access, ≥3 acts, >3 months apart, victim <14). | Garcia argued testimony was inherently improbable or physically impossible and insufficiency of proof. | Held: Evidence was sufficient; conviction supported by substantial evidence. |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to object to expert CAAS testimony | Love’s testimony explained common misconceptions about child‑victim behavior and was admissible to rehabilitate credibility. | Garcia argued Love’s testimony improperly presented statistics, mirrored case facts, advocated for victim credibility, and effectively proved the crime; counsel was ineffective for not objecting. | Held: Counsel’s failure to object was unreasonable and prejudicial given the testimony’s statistical, factual, and advocacy improprieties; reversal for IAC and remand for retrial. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Julian, 34 Cal.App.5th 878 (2019) (CAAS testimony admissible to rehabilitate credibility but not to prove abuse or present predictive/statistical conclusions)
- People v. Bowker, 203 Cal.App.3d 385 (1988) (limits on expert CAAS testimony; expert advocacy and sympathy solicitation exceed permissible scope)
- People v. Gilbert, 5 Cal.App.4th 1372 (1992) (better practice: limit CAAS testimony to class behaviors and avoid recounting facts similar to the case)
- People v. Wilson, 33 Cal.App.5th 559 (2019) (statistical expert evidence may impermissibly place a thumb on the scale for guilt)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v. Centeno, 60 Cal.4th 659 (2014) (deference to counsel must not insulate poor performance; IAC analysis)
- People v. Bell, 7 Cal.5th 70 (2019) (clarifies defendant’s burden in proving counsel’s performance deficient and prejudicial)
- People v. Lindberg, 45 Cal.4th 1 (2008) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)
- People v. Collins, 68 Cal.2d 319 (1968) (expert statistical probability evidence can distract jurors from weighing other proof)