People v. Olivas, 248 Cal. App. 4th 758

Defendant Jose Rodriguez Olivas was convicted by a jury of multiple sex offenses (including continuous sexual abuse, forcible lewd acts, and aggravated sexual assault by oral copulation/rape) based on his long-term abuse of a child who disclosed between 2003 and 2012; convictions included counts 1–14 and 20–22, with sentence totaling determinate plus consecutive indeterminate terms.
The prosecution’s case relied primarily on the victim’s testimony, corroborating family testimony, earlier interviews (2003 school/police/clinic), and later disclosures; defense theory was that the victim fabricated the allegations.
Defense elicited expert testimony about memory distortion; prosecution presented rebuttal expert explaining delayed disclosure is consistent with child abuse cases.
During jury instructions the court gave CALCRIM No. 3518 (permitting jury to choose order of considering offenses but permitting guilty of lesser only if not guilty of corresponding greater), and defense did not request a voluntary-intoxication instruction; counsel argued primarily that no misconduct occurred, alternatively that evidence of force was insufficient for greater offenses.
While deliberating the jury asked: “If we are ‘hung’ on a count (ie: 14), are we able to consider the alternate count (ie: 19?)” The court answered “No.” After that the jury convicted on the greater counts (10–14) and did not reach verdicts on the alternate counts (15–19).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to request voluntary-intoxication instruction	Trial counsel was not ineffective; trial strategy was to deny all misconduct, and requesting intoxication instruction would contradict that strategy	Olivas: counsel should have requested CALCRIM No. 3426 because evidence showed frequent drinking and intoxication at incidents	Court: No ineffective assistance. Tactical reasons justified not requesting instruction; no prejudice shown under Ledesma/Strickland
Whether the trial court erred by answering “No” to jury question about considering alternate counts when hung on greater counts	The People: pre-deliberation instruction and context cured any error; answer merely explained voting/order	Olivas: the “No” told jurors they could not consider alternate counts if deadlocked on greater counts, violating acquittal-first principles	Court: Trial court committed Kurtzman error by effectively telling jurors not to consider alternate counts; error affected all alternate counts (10–19) and was prejudicial under Watson, so convictions on counts 10–19 reversed and remanded

Ledesma v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.3d 171 (establishes standards for ineffective assistance review)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes prejudice and deficient performance standard for Strickland claims)
Verdugo, People v., 50 Cal.4th 263 (no sua sponte duty to instruct on voluntary intoxication; requirement for substantial evidence of intoxication affecting specific intent)
Stone v. Superior Court, 31 Cal.3d 503 (trial court obligation to allow jury opportunity for partial acquittal when deadlocked on lesser included offense)
Kurtzman, People v., 46 Cal.3d 322 (clarifies acquittal-first rule; error to tell jury not to consider lesser unless unanimously agreed on greater)
Watson, People v., 46 Cal.2d 818 (standard for determining prejudice from non-constitutional trial error)
Bacon, People v., 50 Cal.4th 1082 (discusses jury discretion in order of considering alternative charges)