A166803
Cal. Ct. App.Aug 29, 2025Background
- Defendant Randolph Haldeman was tried by jury (8 days, Apr–May 2021) and convicted of 15 sexual offenses spanning ~1989–2018 involving nine minor victims (counts included lewd acts, forcible lewd acts, sodomy/oral copulation by intoxication, and unlawful contact/communication with intent).
- Trial evidence included direct testimony from multiple victims, a CSAAS expert for the prosecution, and Haldeman’s own lengthy testimony; a recorded jail visit with his sister was played for the jury.
- Jury found several sentencing-related special allegations true (including multiple victims and substantial sexual conduct for some counts); some counts resulted in mistrial or acquittal; sentence imposed was 165 years to life (indeterminate) plus a concurrent determinate term of 10 years, 8 months.
- Haldeman raised 19 appellate claims (sufficiency of evidence, instructional and evidentiary errors, prosecutorial misconduct, and numerous ineffective-assistance claims); the trial court denied a new-trial motion and this appeal followed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed in all respects, rejecting challenges to sufficiency, most evidentiary rulings, CSAAS instruction, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and Sixth Amendment sentencing claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Haldeman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Peter was too intoxicated to consent (counts 1–3) | Victim testimony showed significant intoxication, dissociation, impaired judgment; jurors were properly instructed on "prevented from resisting" (ability to exercise reasonable judgment). | Peter’s drinking was voluntary and he acted coherently; evidence insufficient to show legal incapacity. | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports jury’s finding that alcohol prevented legal resistance. |
| Adverse ruling sustaining objection to cross-exam on moral understanding (right to cross-examine) | Objection sustained for vagueness; counsel invited to rephrase; no exclusion of evidence. | Sustaining the objection unconstitutionally limited cross-examination on victim’s ability to assess moral character (element of intoxication). | No violation; counsel did not rephrase and tactical choices foreclose ineffective-assistance claim. |
| Sufficiency of evidence that force/duress/fear was used (counts 9–13) | Victims’ age, vulnerability, dependence on defendant, fear of consequences support duress/fear finding. | No explicit threats or force; psychological coercion alone insufficient. | Affirmed: totality (age, relationship, vulnerability) supports duress/fear; psychological coercion can establish duress. |
| Sufficiency of touching (count 16 — Garrett) | Circumstances (long shower time, developmental delays, need for assistance dressing/combing) permit inference defendant touched victim. | Victim and mother contemporaneously said no touching; no direct testimony of touching. | Affirmed: circumstantial evidence allowed reasonable inference of touching. |
| Admission and use of defendant’s other sexual offenses as propensity evidence re count 18 (Evid. Code §1108) | Count 288.3 (attempt/communication to commit lewd act) involves conduct proscribed by §288; §1108 permits prior sexual-offense evidence unless excluded under §352. | §288.3 not listed in §1108(d)(1)(A); instruction permitting propensity use was improper/overbroad. | Affirmed: §1108 applies to conduct-based offenses like §288.3 where the target involves §288 conduct; instruction proper and harmless. |
| CSAAS instruction (CALCRIM No. 1193) — may jury use CSAAS to assess credibility? | CALCRIM 1193 correctly limits CSAAS to showing that a victim’s behavior may be consistent with molestation, for believability/rebuttal of inconsistency. | Instruction risks bolstering victim credibility and permits impermissible use of expert testimony. | Affirmed: instruction accurate and not reasonably likely to be misapplied on this record. |
| Admissibility of recorded jail conversation with sister — attorney-client privilege and ineffective assistance | Defendant claims sister acted as part of defense team and visit was privileged; counsel ineffective for not excluding recording. | Recording occurred in monitored public room; trial court found no clear engagement as legal agent and waiver of confidentiality. | Affirmed: trial court’s factual findings supported; privilege not established; no prejudice shown. |
| Sixth Amendment challenge to trial court factual finding that offenses were separate events (consecutive sentencing) | Finding separate occasions by judge (not jury) increased punishment in violation of Apprendi/Alleyne/Erlinger. | Statutory consecutive-sentencing scheme (and Catarino/Ice precedent) allows judge to make those sentencing allocations. | Affirmed: Catarino controlling; judge’s consecutive-sentence factfinding did not violate Sixth Amendment under current precedent. |
| Prosecutor’s closing remarks (dilution of reasonable doubt; calling defendant a “monster”) | Comments were reasonable inferences from evidence and cured by instructions and defense argument; not prejudicial. | Remarks improperly diluted burden of proof and inflamed jury; counsel ineffective for not objecting. | Affirmed: comments within permissible latitude or harmless when considered with jury instructions and defense closing; no prejudice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Manibusan, 58 Cal.4th 40 (Cal. 2013) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- People v. Giardino, 82 Cal.App.4th 454 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (interpretation of "prevented from resisting" — focus on ability to exercise judgment)
- People v. McAlpin, 53 Cal.3d 1289 (Cal. 1991) (CSAAS admissible to rehabilitate credibility when defendant points to victim conduct inconsistent with molestation)
- People v. Story, 45 Cal.4th 1282 (Cal. 2009) (Evidence Code §1108 applies where charged crime involves conduct proscribed by listed sexual-offense statutes)
- People v. Catarino, 14 Cal.5th 748 (Cal. 2023) (upholding judge factfinding for consecutive sentencing under state scheme against Apprendi/Alleyne challenge)
- Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (U.S. 2009) (Apprendi line does not bar judicial factfinding for imposition of consecutive sentences in certain contexts)
- Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (U.S. 2024) (facts that increase mandatory minimum/maximum exposure must be found by jury — distinguishes sentencing factfinding that affects exposure)
- People v. Pierce, 104 Cal.App.4th 893 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (assault with intent to commit rape involves conduct proscribed by §1108 and supports admission of other-sex-offense evidence)