243 Cal. App. 4th 1063
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Luis Miguel Mateo was convicted by a jury of continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14 (Pen. Code § 288.5(a)) after a second trial; the first trial hung. He received a 12‑year middle term sentence.
- Victim I.T. testified in detail to multiple incidents of sexual intercourse occurring between ages 9 and 12; defendant later admitted to officers that intercourse occurred multiple times, after suggestive questioning.
- The prosecution presented clinical psychologist Jayme Jones to testify about Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS); Jones had not evaluated the victim or reviewed case files and clarified CSAAS is not predictive of abuse.
- Defense argued the court erred in (1) applying the wrong standard on a Wheeler/Batson peremptory‑challenge claim, (2) failing to give a sua sponte limiting instruction on CSAAS (CALCRIM No. 1193), and (3) failing to instruct on lewd or lascivious act (§ 288(a)) as a lesser included offense; also claimed ineffective assistance and cumulative error.
- The trial court gave the statutory expert‑opinion instruction (CALCRIM No. 332) but did not give CALCRIM No. 1193; defense counsel did not request the CSAAS limiting instruction.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding no sua sponte duty to give the CSAAS limiting instruction and that any error would be harmless; other claims (Wheeler/Batson, lesser‑included instruction, ineffective assistance) were rejected on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sua sponte duty to give limiting instruction on CSAAS | Prosecution: no sua sponte duty beyond statutory expert instruction | Mateo: Housley requires a sua sponte limiting instruction (CALCRIM No. 1193) when CSAAS testimony is offered | No sua sponte duty; section 1127b (CALCRIM No. 332) suffices; limiting instruction required only on request |
| Prejudice from omission of CSAAS limiting instruction | Prosecution: any failure was harmless given expert’s disclaimers and strong evidence | Mateo: omission likely affected jury — first trial hung; second trial included CSAAS expert | Any error harmless under People v. Watson; no reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to request CALCRIM No. 1193 | Prosecution: tactical choices reasonable; record gives no basis to find deficient performance | Mateo: counsel’s failure prejudiced defense | Claim rejected: no record explanation for counsel’s choice and no demonstrated prejudice; tactical reasons plausible |
| (Other instructional and Batson/Wheeler claims) | Prosecution: trial court rulings were correct | Mateo: trial court erred on peremptory challenges and lesser‑included instruction | Court affirmed on those claims as well on the record (no reversible error) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Housley, 6 Cal.App.4th 947 (court held sua sponte CSAAS limiting instruction appropriate)
- People v. Humphrey, 13 Cal.4th 1073 (no sua sponte duty to give limiting instruction; instruction appropriate on request)
- People v. Stark, 213 Cal.App.3d 107 (CSAAS evidence admissible to dispel misconceptions; limiting instruction required if requested)
- People v. Bowker, 203 Cal.App.3d 385 (CSAAS expert testimony should be limited to showing victim’s reactions are not inconsistent with molestation)
- People v. Murtishaw, 51 Cal.4th 574 (general rule that limiting instructions are not required sua sponte)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (standard for harmless error review)
- People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342 (tactical decisions by counsel can justify not requesting an instruction)