People v. Torres CA4/1
D082844
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 18, 2025Background
- Raul Alvarez Torres was convicted by a jury of multiple sex offenses against his daughter, A.A., including continuous sexual abuse, nine counts of forcible lewd acts on a child under 14, and two counts of committing lewd acts with a child aged 14 or 15.
- The convictions were based on events occurring over many years, starting from when A.A. was four years old until she was 14-15.
- The primary evidence included A.A.'s testimony, recorded calls in which Torres made incriminating statements, and his own statements to police admitting inappropriate conduct.
- Torres challenged only his conviction on count 12: a lewd act (oral copulation) when A.A. was around 15, arguing there was insufficient evidence it occurred within the charged time frame.
- The trial court sentenced Torres to 66 years in prison following guilty verdicts on all charges, and the case was appealed on the sufficiency of evidence for count 12 only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conviction under § 288(c)(1), count 12 (oral copulation when A.A. was 15) | Evidence (A.A.'s generic testimony and defendant's admissions) demonstrated sufficiently regular abuse and acts of oral copulation after A.A. was 14, supporting conviction even if A.A. could not specify precise dates. | No evidence showed oral copulation occurred after A.A. turned 15; A.A. specified abuse stopped when she was 14, undermining conviction for acts after her 15th birthday. | Court held substantial evidence supported the conviction; generic testimony and defendant's admissions were sufficient under precedent, and precise dates were not necessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Jones, 51 Cal.3d 294 (Cal. 1990) (generic testimony in child molestation cases can suffice for multiple conviction counts when the abuse is regular and specific types of act are identified)
- People v. Collins, 17 Cal.5th 293 (Cal. 2025) (sets forth standards for reviewing sufficiency of evidence claims)
- People v. Westerfield, 6 Cal.5th 632 (Cal. 2019) (appellate review presumes all factual findings supporting a verdict)
- People v. Johnson, 26 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1980) (articulates the test for substantial evidence in support of a criminal conviction)
- People v. Panah, 35 Cal.4th 395 (Cal. 2005) (uncorroborated testimony of a single witness can be sufficient to sustain conviction)
- People v. Riazati, 195 Cal.App.4th 514 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (emphasizes role of appellate courts in reviewing evidence without reweighing credibility)