People v. Smith
198 Cal. App. 4th 415
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Defendant was convicted by jury of a lewd act on a child under 14 (count I) and continuous sexual abuse (count II).
- Counts cover offenses from January 1, 1987 to August 9, 1993; victim Jane Doe was born August 10, 1979.
- Trial court sentenced upper term of 16 years on count II and consecutive 2 years on count I, total 18 years, plus fines and restitution to be determined.
- Restitution hearing awarded $753,265 total: $3,265 economic damages and $750,000 noneconomic damages; funds lodged with court were partially distributed.
- Problems on appeal include statute of limitations, jury instructions, restitution, and sentencing; court modified judgment and affirmed.
- Court remanded to correct writ of execution and amend abstract of judgment for restitution partial satisfaction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations extension | People challenged limits §803(f) extension; insufficient corroboration. | Doe’s allegations lacked substantial conduct and independent corroboration. | Extension valid; substantial sexual conduct and independent corroboration shown. |
| Noneconomic damages and jury trial rights | Never asked for jury trial for noneconomic damages; Marsy’s Law supports victim participation. | Noneconomic damages require jury determination; violation of rights if not. | No jury trial right for noneconomic restitution; rational distinctions upheld; Marsy’s Law permits victim counsel presence. |
| Credit for restitution paid | Partial restitution funds already paid should be credited against judgment. | Credit not reflected in abstract/writ; needs adjustment. | Partial satisfaction must be reflected in writ and abstract; remand for correction. |
| Marsy’s Law impact on restitution hearing participation | Marsy’s Law grants victim counsel participation rights at restitution hearing. | Rights cannot override prosecutorial authority. | Victim’s attorney permitted to participate; People’s attorney present; no invasion of prosecutorial duties. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Williams, 21 Cal.4th 335 (1999) (jurisdictional rule on timeliness of charging documents)
- People v. Ruiloba, 131 Cal.App.4th 674 (2005) (extension under §803(f); corroboration standards)
- People v. Dehle, 166 Cal.App.4th 1380 (2008) (prosecutor participation in restitution hearings)
- Ortega v. Pajaro Valley Unified School Dist., 64 Cal.App.4th 1023 (1998) (noneconomic damages review standard in civil-like context)
- People v. Giordano, 42 Cal.4th 644 (2007) (abuse of discretion standard for restitution awards)
- Seffert v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, 56 Cal.2d 498 (1961) (guidance on appellate review of damages)