People v. Ventura CA5
F085596
Cal. Ct. App.Dec 5, 2024Background
- Defendant Francisco Ventura Ventura was convicted by a jury of lewd touching and attempted sexual intercourse with a six-year-old girl, following an incident witnessed by the victim's adult sister.
- The adult sister discovered Ventura crouched over the victim in a bedroom, prompting immediate police involvement; Ventura admitted to genital-to-genital contact, citing a bizarre justification.
- The victim, eight years old at trial, was declared unavailable as a witness for refusing to testify; her statements from a prior forensic interview were admitted over defense objection.
- DNA evidence confirmed Ventura's contact with the victim's genitalia, and Ventura made incriminating statements during custodial interrogation.
- The jury convicted Ventura of attempted sexual intercourse (not full penetration) and a lewd act, but acquitted him of the most serious charge; the court imposed a seven-year sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Victim's Forensic Interview | Error was harmless; other evidence clearly established guilt | Admission violated Confrontation Clause | Error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Sister’s Testimony About Victim’s Statements | Statements were non-testimonial excited utterances | Hearsay and should be excluded | Properly admitted as nontestimonial, excited utterance |
| Application of Evidence Code § 1360 | Permits child abuse victim statements if unavailable | Statute does not override Confrontation Clause | Evidence Code § 1360 not sufficient after Crawford |
| Sufficiency of Evidence for Attempted Charge | DNA and defendant’s admissions establish attempt | No penetration, only attempted touching | Evidence sufficient to uphold attempt conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (confrontation clause prohibits admission of testimonial hearsay unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (federal harmless error analysis for constitutional violations)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (clarifies when statements are testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes)
- Ohio v. Clark, 576 U.S. 237 (2015) (statements made to non-law enforcement individuals are less likely to be testimonial)