People v. Thomas
15 Cal. App. 5th 1063
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2017Background
- Defendant Edward Thomas, father of victim (Jane Doe), repeatedly sexually abused her from about age 4–5 until about 14; crimes included digital and penile penetration and repeated oral copulation.
- Jane Doe testified the abuse occurred at home over a decade, that Thomas physically beat and intimidated her (beltings, grabbing, kicking), and she was afraid to tell anyone.
- In 2013–2014 Jane Doe confronted Thomas in a pretext phone call; Thomas apologized and admitted wrongdoing.
- Police interviews and a letter from Thomas’ ex-wife corroborated admissions; Thomas admitted frequent sexual contact, estimating hundreds of incidents.
- A jury convicted Thomas on nine counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child (oral copulation, sexual penetration, rape); court sentenced him to 135 years to life.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that offenses were by force, fear, menace, or duress | Prosecution: ongoing physical beatings and parental authority created implied threats and a climate of fear causing nonconsensual acquiescence | Thomas: insufficient evidence he used force, threats, or duress to overcome will for the charged acts | Affirmed — substantial evidence supported force for penetration and duress/menace/fear for all counts given child's age, father–child relationship, and repeated physical abuse |
| Force for penetrative act (Count 1) | Prosecution: defendant led child, positioned her on sink and digitally penetrated her — physical movement constituted force | Thomas: contested that the elements of "force" were not met | Affirmed — jury could infer force from physical grabbing, positioning, and victim’s fear |
| Applicability of duress/menace/fear to oral copulation counts | Prosecution: implied threats and pattern of beatings made victim submit; age and authority amplify coercion | Thomas: argued lack of express threats and reliance on molestation alone insufficient | Affirmed — duress/menace/fear may be inferred from ongoing violence and parental authority; explicit verbal threats not required |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to object to detective’s recounting of victim’s out‑of‑court statement (hearsay) | Defendant: trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to hearsay testimony about age at which oral copulation occurred | Prosecution: any objection would be meritless because statement qualified as prior inconsistent statement; other strong evidence of timing (defendant’s admissions, pretext call) | Affirmed — counsel’s omission reasonable and not prejudicial; evidence independent of detective’s testimony established timing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Redmond, 71 Cal.2d 745 (review standard for substantial evidence) (1969) (discussing substantial‑evidence review)
- People v. Young, 190 Cal.App.3d 248 (placement/positioning and force in child sexual assault) (1987)
- People v. Cochran, 103 Cal.App.4th 8 (duress inference from familial authority and child’s vulnerability) (2002)
- People v. Veale, 160 Cal.App.4th 40 (young victim vulnerability; duress in parent–child molestation) (2008)
- People v. Espinoza, 95 Cal.App.4th 1287 (contrast where victim older and evidence of fear was weaker) (2002)
- People v. Iniguez, 7 Cal.4th 847 (fear can be inferred from circumstances; sleeping‑victim incidents) (1994)
- People v. Fierro, 1 Cal.4th 173 (prior inconsistent statement hearsay exception applied to forgetful witness) (1991)
- People v. Salcido, 44 Cal.4th 93 (Strickland standard; ineffective assistance framework on appeal vs habeas) (2008)