People v. Spence
151 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Spence was convicted of multiple sexual offenses involving a child 10 years old or younger (D.), occurring in April and March 2009; sentenced to 55 years to life.
- Appeal challenges: (a) using suppression-hearing statements to impeach a defense expert’s opinions about writing ability, and (b) allowing a medical expert to answer a name-specific hypothetical about DNA evidence.
- Trial featured two letters found on Spence at arrest, which were read into evidence to challenge the defense expert’s conclusions about writing ability; suppression hearing had involved Spence’s testimony about writing.
- Witness D. testified with a victim advocate and a therapy dog in court; the court permitted these supports under statutory provisions and exercised discretion to control proceedings.
- Statutory interpretation issue resolved in light of People v. Cornett, holding the “10 years old or younger” language means under 11; affirming convictions.
- Court affirmed judgment, finding no reversible error in the challenged evidentiary rulings and trial procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Impeachment of defense expert with suppression hearing statements | Spence’s suppression-testimony impeachment undermines James. | Impeachment of a defense expert with illegally obtained statements violates James. | No error; James distinctions not controlling here. |
| Hypothetical DNA question to medical expert | Question sought to draw guilt conclusions from DNA evidence. | Answer aided by hypothetical based on victim’s claim. | Harmless error; did not prejudice verdict. |
| Presence of victim advocate and therapy dog at testimony | Presence improperly emphasizes victim status and sways jury. | Support allowed under 868.5; no undue prejudice. | Not reversible; any error harmless given other corroborating evidence. |
| Statutory interpretation of “10 years old or younger” | Statute is ambiguous since victim was over 10 at time of offenses. | Statutory interpretation could be challenged. | Cornett controls; language means under 11; convictions affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- James v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1990) (impeachment limitations for illegally obtained statements)
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1968) (impeachment use of suppression testimony when defendant testifies)
- People v. Boyer, 38 Cal.4th 412 (Cal. 2006) (impeachment of defense-related expert testimony not barred by James)
- People v. Vang, 52 Cal.4th 1038 (Cal. 2011) (hypothetical/clinical expert testimony framework; ultimate-issue considerations)
- People v. Johnson, 183 Cal.App.4th 253 (Cal. 2010) (application of James balancing principles to impeachment context)
- People v. Cornett, 53 Cal.4th 1261 (Cal. 2012) (statutory interpretation of age in §288.7 (under 11))
- U.S. v. Trzaska, 885 F.Supp. 46 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) (comparison in impeachment contexts involving defendant-witness)
- Gonzalez v. People, 38 Cal.4th 932 (Cal. 2006) (proper use of hypothetical questions in expert testimony)
- Valdez v. People, 58 Cal.App.4th 494 (Cal. 1997) (limits on expert testimony that may amount to guilt opinion)