People v. Slape CA1/4, A136669

Defendant Darrell Ravan Slape was convicted by a jury of sexual penetration by a foreign object of a victim unconscious of the act, sexual battery by fraud, and misdemeanor battery, and received a seven-year prison term.
The crimes occurred during massages at Slape’s business, Back in Action, involving two victims referred to as Jane Doe One and Jane Doe Two.
Doe One, treated for a psoas issue, experienced internal contact and alleged penetration during the massage, followed by reporting the incident to police.
Doe Two, a massage therapist, alleged inappropriate touching and manipulation during a massage exchange, leading to fear and subsequent reporting.
The defense sought to admit expert testimony (Dr. Podboy and Dr. Friedman) to address perception, memory, trauma effects, and referred sensation, but the trial court excluded the testimony.
Slape challenged the denials, contending ineffective assistance of counsel and errors in excluding expert testimony, as well as alleging inadequate hearing accommodations and cruel and unusual punishment, but the court denied relief and affirmed the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exclusion of experts on memory and trauma	People argues admissibility was properly exercised by the court.	Slape contends exclusion deprived him of a fair trial and effective defense.	No abuse of discretion; improper to impeach credibility with psychiatric testimony.
Ineffective assistance of counsel regarding experts	Defense inadequately presents prejudice from exclusion.	Counsel should have presented Podboy and Friedman more thoroughly.	No prejudice shown; defense failure to prove prejudice.
Denial of motion for new trial and continuances	New trial motion and transcripts needed further review and live testimony.	Court denied reasonable continuances and violated rights to counsel.	No abuse of discretion; continuances granted were reasonable; ruling proper.
Hearing accommodations for disability	Accommodations violated due process and fair trial rights.	Accommodations were insufficient to ensure participation.	Accommodations were adequate; no prejudice shown.
Cruel and unusual punishment claim	Sentence disproportionate given age and lack of prior record.	Punishment excessive for the crimes committed.	No disproportionate punishment; sentence affirmed.

People v. Cooks, 141 Cal.App.3d 224 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1983) (impeachment by psychiatric testimony generally disfavored)
People v. Chatman, 38 Cal.4th 344 (Cal. 2006) (disfavor of psychiatric testimony to impeach credibility)
People v. Alcala, 4 Cal.4th 742 (Cal. 1992) (limits on psychiatric testimony to impeach witness credibility)
People v. Marshall, 13 Cal.4th 799 (Cal. 1996) (caution against abuse of expert testimony)
People v. Zamudio, 23 Cal.4th 183 (Cal. 2000) (trial court may resolve evidentiary disputes without live testimony)
People v. Cox, 53 Cal.3d 618 (Cal. 1991) (live hearing on new trial is discretionary)