People v. Griffin CA5
F068898
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 4, 2016Background
- Defendant Robert Lee Griffin was convicted by jury of two counts of lewd acts on a child under 14 (Pen. Code §288(a)) and one count of sexual penetration of a child 10 or younger (§288.7(b)); he admitted a prior conviction and a prior prison term; sentenced to 131 years to life.
- Allegations arose from two girls (I. and M.) who spent time at Griffin’s residence; they described repeated "snuggling," groping, and digital penetration during overnight visits; disclosures were made to family, CPS, and in recorded MDIC interviews.
- Prosecution introduced Griffin’s 2006 misdemeanor conviction for secretly videotaping young relatives, computer evidence (search terms for child pornography and 18 thumbnails of provocative images), and expert testimony on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS).
- Defense challenged admission of the prior conviction and computer evidence, sought a modified CALCRIM No. 318 (fresh complaint limiting language), objected to CALCRIM No. 1193 (CSAAS instruction), and sought to elicit details of a prior molestation of one victim.
- The trial court admitted the prior conviction (by stipulation), the computer images/search data, gave the standard CALCRIM No. 318 and No. 1193 (with limiting language), and limited inquiry into the victim’s prior molestation; on appeal the court affirmed all rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of 2006 misdemeanor conviction and computer images/search data | Evidence shows propensity/intent and was properly admissible under Evid. Code §1108 and §1101(b); not unduly prejudicial under §352 | Admission was overly prejudicial, dissimilar to charged acts, and rendered trial fundamentally unfair (due process) | Admitted; court found probative similarity (position of trust, sexual interest in preteens), limiting measures minimized prejudice; no due process violation |
| Refusal to modify CALCRIM No. 318 (fresh complaint limiting instruction) | Modification required because some pretrial statements were fresh-complaint evidence and should be limited to that purpose | Pattern instruction and other rulings covered prior inconsistent/consistent statements; no legal requirement to modify here | Denial harmless; statements were cumulative or admissible as prior consistent/inconsistent statements; no federal error |
| CALCRIM No. 1193 (CSAAS instruction) | Instruction improperly allowed jury to use CSAAS to find the molestations true (impermissible) | Instruction limited use: not evidence defendant committed crime; usable only to evaluate whether victims’ conduct was consistent with CSAAS and to assess believability | Instruction upheld; read with other limiting instructions, not reasonably likely jury used CSAAS to prove occurrence of molestation |
| Exclusion of details about victim’s prior molestation | Defense needed specifics (and hearing under Evid. Code §782) to attack credibility and present a complete defense | Trial properly limited irrelevant/unduly prejudicial details; defense did not file required §782 written motion and withdrew some objections | No reversible error: §782 procedures not invoked by defendant; court allowed limited questioning about victim’s knowledge but barred underlying facts; no unfairness or confrontation violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Falsetta v. California, 21 Cal.4th 903 (Cal. 1999) (legislative purpose and scope of Evid. Code §1108 allowing prior sexual-offense propensity evidence)
- Memro v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.4th 786 (Cal. 1995) (pornographic material admissible to show intent/motive in sex-offense prosecutions)
- Jablonski v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.4th 774 (Cal. 2006) (due process: admission of relevant evidence does not offend unless it renders trial fundamentally unfair)
- Brown v. State, 8 Cal.4th 746 (Cal. 1994) (fresh complaint doctrine and requirement to give limiting instruction on request)
- McAlpin v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 1289 (Cal. 1991) (CSAAS testimony admissible to explain victim behavior and rehabilitate credibility)
- Daggett v. Superior Court, 225 Cal.App.3d 751 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (scope of admissibility for prior molestation evidence to attack witness credibility)
- Ewoldt v. Superior Court, 7 Cal.4th 380 (Cal. 1994) (considerations under §352 when prior acts evidence is similar in inflammatory strength to charged offenses)