204 Cal. App. 4th 641
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Maharaj was convicted by jury of multiple counts involving a young girl under 14, including forcible lewd act (count 1), three counts of aggravated sexual assault (counts 2–4), and numerous lewd and lascivious acts (counts 5–13).
- Count 14 (criminal threat) was dismissed after the jury deadlocked, and counts 15–16 involved exhibiting harmful material to a minor.
- The trial court sentenced Maharaj to 33 years 4 months in state prison plus an indeterminate term of 45 years to life.
- On appeal Maharaj challenged issues primarily tied to counts 1–4: juror bias, sufficiency of evidence for count 4, notice for count 4, and proposed jury instructions and sentencing questions.
- Factual proof showed repeated molestations of J., beginning when she was 12, including kissing, touching, oral and anal acts, with threats and concealment, and corroborating testimony and physical/medical indicators.
- CSAAS expert testimony was presented by the defense, while rebuttal evidence included letters from a relative; the defense also offered character witnesses and a psychologist for risk assessment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror removal for bias or incapacity | Maharaj | Maharaj | Juror not required to be removed; no bias or incapacity shown |
| Sufficiency of evidence for count 4 aggravated sexual assault | Sufficient evidence supports count 4 | Insufficient evidence | Evidence sufficient to sustain count 4 |
| Notice for count 4 | Victim's testimony at preliminary hearing provided notice | Lack of notice of conduct | Not violative of due process; notice provided by preliminary hearing testimony |
| Lesser included offense of nonforcible lewd act | Include nonforcible lewd act instruction | Instruction warranted | No basis for nonforcible instruction; no supporting evidence |
| Consecutive sentencing under section 667.6 for counts 1–4 | Counts 1–4 mandatory consecutive; Goodliffe limits apply | Section 667.6(c) precludes consecutive sentences for same victim on separate occasions | Counts 1–4 mandatorily consecutive; Goodliffe distinguished; proper application of 667.6 to four forcible offenses |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Goodliffe, 177 Cal.App.4th 723 (Cal.App.4th 2009) (addresses limits of consecutive sentencing under 667.6 for multiple forcible offenses)
- People v. Scott, 9 Cal.4th 331 (Cal.4th 1995) (preservation of unauthorized sentence challenges)
- People v. Stowell, 31 Cal.4th 1107 (Cal.4th 2003) (unauthorized sentence reviewable on appeal)
- People v. Smith, 24 Cal.4th 849 (Cal.4th 2001) (consecutive sentencing framework under 667.6)
- Jones, 46 Cal.3d 585 (Cal.3d 1988) (mandate concepts for consecutive sentencing for multiple offenses)