112 Cal.App.5th 127
Cal. Ct. App.2025Background
- Mark Richard Walts was convicted by jury of continuous sexual abuse of his daughter, T.W., and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
- The trial court also ordered an HIV test and issued a protective order barring contact with T.W., Walts’ ex-wife Tina Walts, minor daughter W.W., and adult son M.W.
- On appeal, Walts challenged: the admission of speculative testimony about clothing purchases, the basis for the HIV test order, and inclusion of multiple family members in the protective order.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed Walts’ conviction but found errors in the orders for HIV testing and the protective order as to non-victims.
- The case clarifies statutory interpretation of protective orders and necessary factual basis for postconviction HIV testing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of speculative testimony (clothing) | Testimony was based on personal knowledge, not speculation | The question about possible clothing purchases was speculative | Not reversible error or prejudicial; any error was harmless |
| Protective order included non-victims (Tina, W.W., M.W.) | Household members can be protected; harm shown | Only actual crime victims may be named; only T.W. is victim | Only T.W. may be named; order as to others was erroneous |
| Order for HIV test | Order proper based on offense | No evidence of bodily fluid capable of transmitting HIV | HIV test order was error; insufficient evidence for transfer |
| Basis for protective order (statutory grounds) | N/A | Should be under correct statutory section (§136.2(i)(1)) | Must clarify order is under §136.2(i)(1), not §646.9(k) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rodriguez, 58 Cal.4th 587 (Cal. 2014) (on when lay witness testimony constitutes impermissible speculation)
- People v. Chatman, 38 Cal.4th 344 (Cal. 2006) (testimony lacking personal knowledge is inadmissible)
- People v. Lopez, 75 Cal.App.5th 227 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (defining when multiple persons can be named in postconviction protective order)
- People v. Race, 18 Cal.App.5th 211 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (scope and definition of "victim" for protective order purposes)
- People v. Delarosarauda, 227 Cal.App.4th 205 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (limitations on who may be subject of §136.2 protective orders)