People v. Paschall CA1/2
A155545
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 28, 2021Background
- In January 2002 Amber, then 20, was accosted by Lamar Paschall and Kenneth Babers, taken to an alley, and subjected to multiple forcible sexual assaults by both men.
- The men took Amber’s identification and cards, threatened to "go after" people at the address on her license, and discussed killing or using her for further sexual exploitation.
- After the assaults the men moved Amber from the loading dock/ alley toward public areas and directed her to ATMs; she attempted to withdraw cash at a Wells Fargo ATM (unsuccessful) and later withdrew $80 and $60 at a Washington Mutual ATM under duress.
- Amber signaled for help at a donut shop; police and medical personnel became involved; Babers later pleaded guilty to rape; Paschall was arrested after identification in 2011.
- Paschall was tried in 2018 and convicted of multiple sexually violent offenses and kidnapping to commit robbery (Wells Fargo ATM). He moved for a new trial challenging sufficiency of evidence and sought cross-examination into the victim’s mental health; the trial court denied relief and sentenced him to an aggregate term of decades to life.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding (1) there was substantial evidence Paschall intended robbery when the movement began and (2) the movement increased Amber’s risk of harm; the court also upheld the trial court’s refusal to permit cross-examination into speculative mental-health questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Paschall) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence shows Paschall had the specific intent to commit robbery when the kidnapping/movement began | Evidence (cards taken, threats about the license address, Paschall directing movement to plaza/ATM) supports intent at seizure/asportation start | Intent formed only after movement began; movement was for other purposes and robbery was an afterthought | Affirmed: jury could reasonably infer intent existed when movement began based on cards, threats, and Paschall directing movement to ATM |
| Whether the movement increased the victim’s risk of harm beyond that inherent in robbery | The movement (forced travel, threats, debate about killing, increased psychological trauma) substantially increased risk of physical/psychological harm | Moving to more public area reduced risk of harm, so element not met | Affirmed: totality of circumstances supported increased risk of harm, including psychological trauma and threats during movement |
| Whether trial court violated confrontation rights by barring cross-examination into alleged mental/psychological disorders | Cross-examination into mental/emotional disorders is relevant to credibility if grounded in factual predicate | Defense lacked factual predicate; questions were speculative and would unfairly harass the victim | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; no factual predicate shown, and limits on speculative questioning were proper under Evid. Code §352 and confrontation jurisprudence |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Tribble, 4 Cal.3d 826 (Cal. 1971) (intent to rob must exist when kidnapping begins for kidnapping-to-robbery conviction)
- People v. Davis, 36 Cal.4th 510 (Cal. 2005) (same principle regarding intent at the time of initial seizing)
- People v. Nguyen, 22 Cal.4th 872 (Cal. 2000) (movement can increase risk of physical or psychological harm; supports kidnapping-for-robbery when movement worsens risk)
- People v. Vines, 51 Cal.4th 830 (Cal. 2011) (factors for assessing increased risk of harm during movement)
- People v. Gurule, 28 Cal.4th 557 (Cal. 2002) (limits on cross-examination about a witness’s mental illness unless factual predicate links disorder to perceptual/recall ability)
- United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554 (U.S. 1988) (Confrontation Clause secures opportunity for cross-examination but courts may impose reasonable limits)