People v. Norton CA3
C090923
| Cal. Ct. App. | Mar 28, 2022Background
- Defendant Matthew Norton was convicted of forcible rape and forcible sexual penetration of his 15‑year‑old niece after she stayed overnight at the home he shared with his then‑fiancée. The niece testified she awoke to Norton on top of her and was penetrated; she delayed reporting the assault for about a year.
- A prior uncharged incident was admitted under Evidence Code §1108: Heather C. testified Norton climbed on top of her in a bedroom and attempted to undress her. The court held a §402 hearing and limited Heather’s testimony to that bedroom incident.
- The jury convicted on rape and sexual penetration counts; the trial court imposed consecutive six‑year terms for each count under Penal Code §667.6 and California Rules of Court addressing aggravating factors.
- At sentencing the court imposed various fees and costs. While the appeal was pending, Assembly Bills changed the law (Pen. Code §1465.9; Gov. Code §6111), rendering several of the imposed fees unenforceable and requiring vacation of unpaid balances.
- The trial court’s abstract of judgment incorrectly referenced Penal Code §289(a)(1)(C) for count 2; the court had reduced the verdict to §289(a)(1)(A) and the abstract needed correction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior sex offense under §1108 | People: prior incident with Heather was sufficiently similar and probative; credibility is for the jury. | Norton: Heather’s testimony was unreliable, demonstrably false, and more prejudicial than probative under §352. | Admitted under §1108; trial court did not abuse discretion—credibility is for jury except in rare demonstrable falsity cases. |
| Consecutive sentences for rape and penetration | People: consecutive full terms are permitted when offenses involve same victim on same occasion and aggravating factors exist. | Norton: victim was not "particularly vulnerable" and mitigating factors (age, employment, letters) outweigh aggravation. | No abuse of discretion. Court reasonably found victim particularly vulnerable and that defendant abused a position of trust; one aggravating factor suffices. |
| Fines/fees imposed without express ability‑to‑pay finding | People: many statutory fees may be imposed; some issues forfeited by failure to object at sentencing. | Norton: fines/fees imposed without ability‑to‑pay finding violate due process (Dueñas). | Majority: Dueñas‑based challenges forfeited for lack of objection; several fees vacated as unenforceable under later statutes (AB 1869 / AB 177 / Gov. Code §6111). Dissent would remand to assess ability to pay. |
| Clerical error in abstract of judgment | People: agree abstract should reflect actual sentence as modified by the court. | Norton: abstract misidentifies count 2 statutory subdivision. | Court directs correction of abstract to show sentence under §289(a)(1)(A) and vacatur of now‑unenforceable fee balances. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Erskine, 7 Cal.5th 279 (Cal. 2019) (discusses §1108 admission and §352 balancing)
- People v. Merriman, 60 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2014) (upheld admission of prior sexual‑offense evidence under §1108)
- People v. Cudjo, 6 Cal.4th 585 (Cal. 1993) (credibility disputes generally for jury; rare demonstrable falsity exception)
- People v. Hovarter, 44 Cal.4th 983 (Cal. 2008) (rejects exclusion for alleged inherent unreliability)
- Vorse v. Sarasy, 53 Cal.App.4th 998 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (trial court may not exclude testimony simply because judge disbelieves it)
- People v. Quintanilla, 170 Cal.App.4th 406 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (standards for imposing consecutive terms in sex‑offense cases)
- People v. Esquibel, 166 Cal.App.4th 539 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (definition and application of “particularly vulnerable” victim)
- People v. Alcala, 4 Cal.4th 742 (Cal. 1992) (impeachment does not alone justify exclusion of evidence)
- People v. Mitchell, 26 Cal.4th 181 (Cal. 2001) (appellate courts may correct clerical errors in abstracts)
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (held some fines require ability‑to‑pay finding; treated as contested authority on appeal)