People v. Garrison CA4/1, D077149

Defendant Danny Ray Garrison was convicted of multiple lewd acts on two child victims (Niece and Friend) and related offenses; several counts carried One Strike multiple-victim allegations that expose him to 15-years-to-life terms.
The jury convicted on all counts and initially found some multiple-victim allegations true and others not true (counts 2–5 not true; counts 1, 6, 7 true).
The trial court concluded those mixed true/not-true findings were inconsistent, sent the jury back with a modified instruction, and the jury then returned true findings on all multiple-victim allegations.
Garrison was sentenced to 60 years to life plus 25 years 4 months, including multiple one-strike terms based on the jury’s final true findings.
For count 7 (forcible lewd act on Niece), the charged act occurred while Niece was sleeping and the only described contact was reaching up the leg of her shorts; no contemporaneous threats, restraint, or added force were described.
On appeal the court (1) reversed the post-reconsideration true findings on counts 2–5, (2) reduced count 7 from forcible (§ 288(b)) to nonforcible (§ 288(a)), and (3) remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court violated §1161 by sending the jury back to reconsider not-true findings on multiple-victim allegations	Court permissibly clarified jury intent under §1161 because verdicts appeared inconsistent and the jury may have mistaken law	Directing reconsideration of not-true findings (tantamount to acquittals) violates §1161; at most court could poll jurors	Trial court erred; sending jury back exceeded §1161 authority. True findings on counts 2–5 reversed
Whether evidence supported the forcible/duress element of count 7 (§288(b))	Evidence of defendant’s age, prior threats/conduct, relationship supports forcible/duress inference	The act occurred while victim slept; touching (reaching up leg) was not greater force than needed and there were no threats or restraint — insufficient for forcible/duress	Insufficient evidence of force/duress; count 7 reduced to §288(a) (nonforcible lewd act)

People v. Carbajal, 56 Cal.4th 521 (2013) (limits on trial courts under §1161; distinguish unintelligible verdicts from mere inconsistency)
People v. Avila, 38 Cal.4th 491 (2006) (not-true enhancement findings treated as acquittals; inconsistent verdicts generally upheld)
People v. Guerra, 176 Cal.App.4th 933 (2009) (trial court erred by inviting jury to reconsider not-true enhancement findings)
People v. Jimenez, 35 Cal.App.5th 373 (2019) (force requires physical compulsion substantially greater than that necessary to accomplish the lewd act)
People v. Veale, 160 Cal.App.4th 40 (2008) (duress defined and assessed under totality of circumstances)
People v. Kusumoto, 169 Cal.App.3d 487 (1985) (sleeping victim: force not shown where perpetrator used no more force than necessary)
People v. Espinoza, 95 Cal.App.4th 1287 (2002) (appellate courts may modify convictions to lesser included offenses when evidence for greater offense is insufficient)
People v. Navarro, 40 Cal.4th 668 (2007) (appellate modification to lesser included offense is appropriate alternative to new trial)