People v. Jimenez
246 Cal. App. 4th 726
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Victim (Jane Doe) intoxicated on methamphetamine and fell asleep at defendant Dario Jimenez’s apartment; woke to sexual penetration and fled; medical exam showed genital injury and bruises.
- Defendant (victim’s uncle) was prosecuted; jury convicted him of felony sexual penetration of an unconscious person and misdemeanor sexual battery; sentenced to three years.
- At trial, Kasey Hoffman (family acquaintance) testified he had known the victim ~15 years and, when asked, said he had "no, never" discussed her truthfulness with family members.
- Defense called witnesses who testified the victim had a reputation for dishonesty; the trial court nevertheless gave the optional bracketed paragraph of CALCRIM No. 105 instructing the jury that lack of discussion of a witness’s truthfulness may be inferred as good character for truthfulness; defendant did not object at trial.
- On appeal, Jimenez argued the optional instruction was legally erroneous, unsupported by evidence, created a false impression, and was an unconstitutional permissive inference; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Jimenez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of CALCRIM No. 105 optional paragraph | Instruction reflects longstanding Adams principle and is legally proper | Instruction conflicts with People v. Adams and requires prior positive character testimony before drawing inference from lack of discussion | Court: Instruction is legally sound; Adams supports inference from lack of discussion without prerequisite positive testimony |
| Evidentiary support for instruction | Hoffman’s testimony that he never discussed victim’s truthfulness provided relevant support | Hoffman’s answer was nonresponsive and insufficient to justify instruction | Court: Hoffman’s unambiguous “No, never” was relevant evidence; instruction supported by record |
| Whether instruction created a “false impression” | Jury received full evidence including witnesses who said victim was dishonest; no misleading omission | Instruction suggested victim was truthful and misled jury (citing Batchelor analogy) | Court: Not analogous to Batchelor; no false impression—jury could weigh all credibility evidence |
| Constitutional challenge to permissive inference | The inference (no discussion → truthfulness) is rational and permitted; does not relieve prosecution burden | The inference was irrational and violated Due Process by creating an unconstitutional permissive inference | Court: Permissive inference here has a rational connection to proven fact and is not unconstitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Adams, 137 Cal. 580 (admissibility of negative evidence that lack of discussion supports good reputation)
- People v. Hoffman, 199 Cal. 155 (lack of discussion is evidence of good reputation; striking such testimony was error)
- People v. Osterhelt, 125 Cal.App. 723 (error in striking character testimony despite witnesses admitting no hearsay discussion)
- People v. Castillo, 5 Cal.App.2d 194 (absence of reproach in community can be best evidence of good reputation)
- People v. McAlpin, 53 Cal.3d 1289 (evidence defendant lacked bad reputation for sexual traits admissible; follows Adams/Hoffman)
- People v. Batchelor, 229 Cal.App.4th 1102 (instructional error that created false impression of no punishment; distinguished by court)
- People v. Mendoza, 24 Cal.4th 130 (permissive-inference due process framework)
- Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837 (standards for evaluating permissive inferences)
- Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307 (a permissive inference does not relieve prosecution of burden; due process test)