67 Cal.App.5th 162
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Victim (Doe) alleged multiple sexual assaults by stepfather Johnny Lapenias beginning before fourth grade and continuing over years; she delayed disclosure until about age 14.
- Prosecution presented Doe, a friend who heard early disclosures, the interviewing officer, and Dr. Blake Carmichael, a CSAAS expert; defense presented no witnesses.
- Trial court admitted Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS) evidence and gave CALCRIM No. 1193 (CSAAS) instruction adapted to the testimony.
- During expert testimony, a juror asked whether children commonly fabricate abuse; over objection the expert answered, “No, that’s rare.”
- Jury convicted Lapenias of multiple sex offenses; court imposed an aggregate term of 182 years to life and various fines and fees. On appeal defendant challenged CSAAS admission and instruction, the expert’s “rare” testimony, and fines/fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of CSAAS evidence | CSAAS was relevant to rehabilitate Doe’s credibility and explain delayed/unconvincing disclosures | CSAAS testimony was unnecessary, unreliable, and prejudicial; public misconceptions no longer justify it | Admissible: trial court did not abuse discretion; CSAAS relevant to credibility and probative value outweighed prejudice |
| CALCRIM No. 1193 (CSAAS instruction) | Instruction accurately limited CSAAS use to evaluating believability, not to prove conduct occurred | Instruction misstated law or improperly aided prosecution | No error: modified pattern instruction correctly limited jurors’ use of CSAAS evidence |
| Expert testimony that false allegations are "rare" (juror question) | Testimony addressed general research and supported CSAAS context | Testimony improperly vouched for complainant, invaded jury’s role to assess credibility | Error to admit that statement; but harmless under Watson standard (not reasonably probable result would differ) |
| Fines and fees (including $5,000 attorney fee, $10,000 restitution fine, other assessments) | Fines/fees were statutory; defendant forfeited objections by not contesting at sentencing | Fines/fees imposed without ability-to-pay hearing; ineffective assistance for failing to object | Forfeited: no timely objection, challenges not preserved; ineffective-assistance claim left to habeas review if appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. McAlpin, 53 Cal.3d 1289 (Cal. 1991) (CSAAS admissible to rebut misconceptions about child abuse reporting and to rehabilitate credibility)
- People v. Coffman & Marlow, 34 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2004) (expert may not opine on a witness’s truthfulness or defendant’s guilt)
- People v. Julian, 34 Cal.App.5th 878 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (CSAAS expert testimony that false allegations are rare is inadmissible)
- People v. Wilson, 33 Cal.App.5th 559 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (same; rarity testimony invades jury’s province)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (standard for reversal on nonconstitutional error: reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome)
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (addressing ability-to-pay before imposing fines and fees)