People v. Gonzales
B276101
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 23, 2017Background
- Defendant Richard Gonzales Jr. lived with the victim L.W. and her family; L.W. was born in 2005 and was repeatedly sexually abused by Gonzales between ages 4–8.
- Charged acts: multiple counts of oral copulation and lewd acts with a child (Pen. Code §§ 288.7, 288, 289); jury convicted on six counts and found substantial sexual contact allegations.
- Prosecution introduced testimony by L.W. about additional uncharged sexual acts she suffered (victim’s own testimony), and a CSAAS expert testified to explain child sexual abuse behavior.
- Trial court instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 1191 (uncharged sexual-offense propensity evidence) and CALCRIM No. 1193 (CSAAS limits).
- Sentencing: three consecutive 15‑to‑life terms (45 years to life); some concurrent sentences stayed under §654; appellate court struck fines on stayed counts and reversed order requiring defendant to pay public defender fees, but otherwise affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/instruction on victim’s testimony of uncharged sex acts under Evid. Code §1108 and CALCRIM No. 1191 | People argued §1108 permits admission of other sexual-offense evidence (from any witness) subject to §352; CALCRIM No. 1191 correctly instructed jury on burden and limited use | Gonzales argued CALCRIM No. 1191 should not be given where uncharged acts are testified to by the victim herself because that adds nothing to her credibility and may allow corroboration of her own testimony or lower the burden of proof | Court held §1108 allows such evidence from the victim if admissible under §352; CALCRIM No. 1191 was proper; any error harmless in this case |
| Due process challenge to CALCRIM No. 1191 (irrational inference / burden of proof) | People: inference that victim’s testimony about uncharged acts can corroborate charged acts is rational and instruction preserves reasonable-doubt standard | Gonzales: allowing jury to find uncharged acts by preponderance and then use them to infer guilt of charged offenses risks lowering the reasonable-doubt standard | Court rejected the due process challenge; instruction did not violate due process and, even if erroneous, any error was harmless given strong corroborating evidence |
| Use of CSAAS testimony and CALCRIM No. 1193 limits | People: CSAAS is admissible to explain victim behavior and instruction correctly limited its use to evaluating believability and inconsistency with abuse, not as proof of offense | Gonzales: instruction was inconsistent or permitted CSAAS to be used as proof the defendant committed charged or uncharged offenses, thereby diluting the burden of proof | Court held CALCRIM No. 1193 was proper and not misleading; CSAAS may rehabilitate believability but is not evidence of commission of offenses; any error was harmless |
| Fines on stayed counts and public defender fee order | People conceded error on fines and on failure to hold ability-to-pay hearing for PD fees | Gonzales argued fines on stayed counts and attorney-fee order were improper | Court struck fines on stayed counts (§290.3) and reversed the PD-fee order without remand for hearing; affirmed remainder of judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Stanley, 67 Cal.2d 812 (recognizes problem of victim’s testimony about uncharged crimes; admission requires weighing probative value vs. prejudice)
- People v. Scott, 21 Cal.3d 284 (pre‑§1108 authority suggesting victim testimony of uncharged sexual conduct generally inadmissible)
- People v. Falsetta, 21 Cal.4th 903 (propensity evidence under §1108 may be used to inform evaluation of credibility)
- People v. Reliford, 29 Cal.4th 1007 (after §1108 enactment, exclude propensity evidence only under §352; upheld use of propensity evidence with instruction)
- People v. Villatoro, 54 Cal.4th 1152 (charged offenses used as propensity evidence must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People v. Ennis, 190 Cal.App.4th 721 (upheld admission of uncharged sexual-offense testimony from same witness under §352)
- People v. Cruz, 2 Cal.App.5th 1178 (criticized instructing that charged offenses could be used as propensity evidence when proved only by preponderance; risk of lowering burden)
- People v. McAlpin, 53 Cal.3d 1289 (CSAAS testimony admissible to rebut inference that child's behavior is inconsistent with abuse; not proof of abuse)