Santillan v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Fresno
136 Cal. Rptr. 3d 197
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Santillans sued the Diocese of Fresno for childhood sexual abuse by priest Anthony Herdegen; evidence showed abuse occurred 1959–1973 with different targets George and Howard.
- The 2003 revival of time-barred claims required showing the Diocese knew or had reason to know of Herdegen’s unlawful conduct before/during abuse.
- Jury found no notice pre-last act for either brother; trial court granted new trial for Howard based on a late-disclosed witness (Wright) and denied new trial for George.
- Wright claimed abuse in 1967; his report surfaced during deliberations, leading to the new-trial motion.
- Court upheld the denial of George’s new-trial motion and granted Howard’s new trial; remanded for Howard retrial.
- Court clarified Doe v. City of Los Angeles standards for “notice” and observed the potential need for clarifying jury instructions on ambiguous evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notice under §340.1 must be actual/constructive knowledge | Santillans: Diocese had notice via known conduct | Diocese: notice limited to actual knowledge; no inference from ambiguous conduct | Generally correct; ambiguous conduct alone not sufficient |
| Ambiguous evidence instruction proper under Doe | Santillans: instruction should allow circumstantial evidence | Diocese: instruction correctly limited reliance on ambiguous conduct | Instruction generally correct; no error in denying clarifying instruction due to waiver |
| Exclusion of Mahony impeachment evidence proper | Santillans: impeachment evidence probative | Diocese: evidence weak, collateral, prejudicial | Exclusion not an abuse of discretion; issue waived |
| Howard new trial based on newly discovered Wright witness proper | Howard acted with diligence; Wright was material | Not diligently pursued; evidence not material for George | New trial for Howard proper; Wright discovery timely and material |
| George new trial denial proper given Wright’s late notice | Wright suggests earlier notice | Doe’s notice requires earlier knowledge; Wright post-dates abuse | Denial proper; Wright did not show notice before last abuse of George |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. City of Los Angeles, 42 Cal.4th 531 (Cal. 2007) (statutory notice requires knowledge of prior unlawful conduct, not mere inquiry notice)
- John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177 (Cal. 2006) (reason to know standard derived from Rest.2d Torts, §12)
- Federico v. Superior Court, 59 Cal.App.4th 1207 (Cal. App. 1997) (ambiguous conduct generally insufficient to establish notice)
- Juarez v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc., 81 Cal.App.4th 377 (Cal. App. 2000) (application of reason-to-know to nonperpetrator liability)
- Delmas v. Martin, 39 Cal. 555 (Cal. 1870) (surprise evidence—early response to trial court favored new trial relaxation)
- Kauffman v. De Mutiis, 31 Cal.2d 429 (Cal. 1948) (new trial under newly discovered evidence; cautionary approach)