People v. Thomas
E065260
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 29, 2017Background
- Defendant Edward Lewis Thomas was convicted by a jury of nine counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child for repeated abuse of his daughter from about age 4–5 until about age 14; sentence: 135 years to life.
- Victim testified to repeated sexual acts (digital penetration, oral copulation, attempted intercourse, fondling) occurring once or twice a month over ~10 years and described frequent physical beatings by defendant (beltings, kicking, neck grabbing).
- Defendant made incriminating admissions in a 2014 pretext telephone call with the victim and in a letter to the victim’s mother, apologizing and acknowledging the abuse began when the victim was about 4–5 years old and continued for years.
- Police interviewed defendant; he admitted frequent sexual contact (weekly or biweekly; possibly hundreds of incidents) including oral copulation and use of lotion to facilitate acts.
- At trial the jury was instructed on force, duress, menace, and fear; convictions were challenged on appeal for insufficient evidence that the offenses were committed by force/duress/menace/fear and for ineffective assistance for failure to object to a detective’s testimony about the timeline (alleged hearsay).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that offenses were committed by force (Count 1) and by duress/menace/fear (all counts) | Substantial evidence supports forcible penetration and that ongoing physical violence and parental authority coerced the victim into submission | There was insufficient evidence of force/duress/menace/fear — no express threats or immediate physical force accompanying many acts | Affirmed: physical positioning and movement supported force for penetration; ongoing beatings, age, parental authority and isolation supplied duress/menace/fear for all counts |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to object to detective’s testimony recounting victim’s earlier statements about ages (hearsay) | Any omission was not prejudicial; detective’s testimony qualified as a prior inconsistent statement under Evidence Code §1235 and other evidence (defendant’s own admissions, pretext call, letter) independently established timeline | Trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to hearsay testimony about when oral copulation occurred | Affirmed: counsel’s omission was not prejudicial and objection would likely have been overruled; no reasonable probability of a different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Redmond, 71 Cal.2d 745 (court reviewed sufficiency of evidence standard)
- People v. Jackson, 58 Cal.4th 724 (standard for reviewing entire record and drawing inferences for sufficiency review)
- People v. Young, 190 Cal.App.3d 248 (force can include physical movement/positioning to accomplish penetration)
- People v. Cochran, 103 Cal.App.4th 8 (totality of circumstances for duress: age, relationship, threats, physical control)
- People v. Veale, 160 Cal.App.4th 40 (duress findings where young child victim abused by parent)
- People v. Espinoza, 95 Cal.App.4th 1287 (distinguished where victim older and fear basis weaker)
- People v. Iniguez, 7 Cal.4th 847 (fear may be inferred from circumstances; sleeping-victim assaults cause fear)
- People v. Fierro, 1 Cal.4th 173 (prior inconsistent statements admissible where witness claims lack of memory)
- People v. Salcido, 44 Cal.4th 93 (standards for ineffective assistance review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (benchmark ineffective assistance of counsel test)