People v. Webb CA1/5
A141992
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 30, 2016Background
- Defendant Jason Webb was convicted of multiple sex crimes involving a three‑year‑old (Jane) and possession of child pornography based on images from his computer and cell phone.
- Officers found hundreds of images and videos showing juveniles in diapers, spanking, sexualized poses, bodily functions, and some photos of Webb in diapers; a cell‑phone sequence (July 4) showed Jane undressed and digital penetration.
- Webb admitted a diaper/spanking fetish (ABDL) and that he possessed sexual images of minors but denied touching Jane; he later gave statements admitting partial contact and masturbating after photographing Jane.
- Trial court admitted numerous non‑victim diaper/spanking images over Webb’s Evidence Code § 352 objection, finding relevance to identity and intent; jury convicted on all counts.
- Postjudgment the trial court ordered $50,000 in noneconomic victim restitution under Penal Code § 1202.4(f)(3)(F); Webb appealed both the convictions (evidentiary rulings) and the restitution order.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed both the admission of the challenged images and the $50,000 noneconomic restitution award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of diaper/spanking/Webb‑in‑diaper photos (Evid. Code § 352) | Photos were probative of possession, identity, and intent to sexualize diapers and Jane; metadata linked images and timing. | Admission was cumulative, inflammatory, and unduly prejudicial; many images unnecessary and would inflame the jury. | Affirmed. Court did not abuse § 352 discretion: images were probative on possession, identity, intent, and not so inflammatory as to substantially outweigh probative value. |
| Noneconomic victim restitution under § 1202.4(f)(3)(F) — jury right and sufficiency | Restitution compensates victim for psychological/pain suffering; trial court properly awarded $50,000 based on photos and expert testimony of pain. | Award violated Apprendi because court (not jury) found psychological harm and there was insufficient evidence of noneconomic injury. | Affirmed. Noneconomic restitution is compensatory (not criminal punishment subject to Apprendi) and no statutory maximum exists; evidence (photos, Dr. Rice’s testimony) supported $50,000 award and amount did not shock conscience. |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (constitutional rule on facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (statutory maximum defined for Apprendi analysis)
- Southern Union Co. v. United States, 567 U.S. 343 (Apprendi principles apply to fines and where no statutory maximum exists)
- People v. Merriman, 60 Cal.4th 1 (standard of review for § 352 rulings)
- People v. Doolin, 45 Cal.4th 390 (prejudice standard under § 352)
- People v. Marsh, 175 Cal.App.3d 987 (example of cumulative/inflammatory photo exclusion)
- People v. Smith, 198 Cal.App.4th 415 (discussion of noneconomic restitution and standard of review)
- People v. Chappelone, 183 Cal.App.4th 1159 (economic restitution treated as civil/compensatory)