People v. Parejascruz CA4/3 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/3/24 P. v. Parejascruz CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, G062769
v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF1803571)
EDGAR PAREJASCRUZ, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside
County, William R. Chidsey, Jr., Judge. (Retired judge of the L.A. Sup. Ct.
assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
Affirmed.
Steven A. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant
Attorney General, Charles Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Natasha
Cortina and Arlyn Escalante, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
Edgar Parejascruz appeals from a judgment following his
convictions for committing sex crimes against minors. He contends the jury
should not have been presented with expert opinions on what is known as the
child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (CSAAS), a theory that
addresses behaviors of victims of childhood sexual abuse. We affirm the
judgment.
1
FACTS
A. Charges and Non-Expert Evidence
In 2019, then 40-year-old Parejascruz was charged with 10
counts of sexual abuse committed against three children under the age of 14,
based on events beginning in 2007.2 At a 2021 trial, three victims—D.G., L.G.
and J.M.—testified about his past conduct.
D.G., testifying as an adult, claimed that Parejascruz began
molesting her when she was four or five years old, while at the home of a
babysitter who was related to Parejascruz and resided with him. Similarly,
D.G.’s sister, L.G., claimed that Parejascruz molested her years ago,
beginning when she was four or five years old. We will sometimes refer to
D.G. and L.G. collectively as the sisters.
1
Our factual summary is limited to issues raised in this appeal.
2
The counts alleged violations of the following Penal Code
sections (all undesignated statutory references are to this code): 269,
subdivision (a)(4) (count 1); 288.7, subdivision (b) (count 2); 288, subdivision
(a) (count 3); 288, subdivision (a) (count 4); 269, subdivision (a)(5) (count 5);
288.7, subdivision (b) (count 6); 288.7, subdivision (b) (count 7); 288,
subdivision (b)(1) (count 8); 288, subdivision (b)(1) (count 9); and 288,
subdivision (b)(1) (count 10). The prosecutor also alleged the number of
victims triggered enhanced sentencing penalties. (§ 667.61, subd. (e)(4).)
2
The third victim-witness was Parejascruz’s stepdaughter, J.M.,
who testified as an adult that Parejascruz began sexually abusing her when
she was six years old. J.M. recalled in her trial testimony: “I felt like I was
the one who was going to get in trouble for it. I felt like it was my fault.”
J.M. had been childhood friends with the sisters. In 2015, when
J.M. was around 11 or 12 years old, she talked to the sisters about her
experience of past sexual abuse by Parejascruz. D.G. confirmed at trial that
J.M. made the 2015 disclosure. D.G. also testified that she then talked to
J.M. about her own past sexual abuse experiences with Parejascruz and, for
the first time, heard her sister, L.G., say that she too had been molested.
J.M. and D.G. both testified that during their 2015 disclosures,
J.M. asked the sisters to not say anything about the abuse because she
wanted to protect her family: her mother, her little brothers (Parejascruz’s
biological sons), and Parejascruz himself who was the family’s sole source of
income. The three girls kept the abuse secret for the next three years.
J.M. testified that in 2018 she became “fed up” because she “felt
like” Parejascruz, who she considered to be her father, was “trying to control
[her] life all the time.” J.M. disclosed the past sexual abuse to her mother,
who confronted Parejascruz. J.M.’s mother kicked Parejascruz out of their
home but did not contact law enforcement. At the same time, the sisters
disclosed to their mother that Parejascruz had sexually abused them in the
past. They explained they had kept quiet to avoid “break[ing] up [J.M.’s]
family.”
A police report was filed and the victims were interviewed.
Relevant to this appeal, J.M. was interviewed in 2018 by multiple
individuals, including a police detective and a child protective services
3
worker. Transcripts of interviews and videos of some were presented to the
jury at trial. J.M. talked about Parejascruz saying he would be hurt if J.M.
disclosed his behavior. J.M. also detailed past experiences, such as how
Parejascruz would digitally penetrate her and that Parejascruz would unlock
the bathroom door while J.M. was showering and molest her.
Three days after one of the interviews, J.M. called the
interviewer to recant her claim that Parejascruz had sexually abused her.
J.M. told the interviewer, both over the phone and in person, that she had
made the claim falsely, out of anger because Parejascruz had taken away her
cell phone after her school grades had fallen. When the interviewer asked
J.M. if anybody had coerced her to change her claim, J.M. was “adamant that
no one influenced” her. During cross-examination at trial, J.M. was
questioned about her return to her original accusations in light of her earlier
recantation. She testified: “I kept lying to [the interviewer] telling her that
[Parejascruz] didn’t do nothing to me, because I was trying to protect him.”
When Parejascruz testified at trial, he asserted that all of the
victims were lying about him. He testified about his typical work schedule:
“When I would arrive home from either work or the gym, [J.M. and his
biological children] would be already asleep.”
When asked about J.M.’s mother’s description of Parejascruz’s
reaction to her confrontation, he testified the mother “wanted to put those
words in my mouth that I asked for forgiveness and apologize[d], but how am
I going to apologize for something I did not do?” During closing arguments,
Parejascruz’s trial counsel detailed J.M.’s inconsistent statements
surrounding her recantation and asked the jury: “is this young lady someone
that can tell the truth?”
4
B. Expert Witness Testimony on CSAAS
During the prosecution’s case-in-chief, the jury was presented
with expert opinion testimony by clinical forensic psychologist Jody Ward,
who testified about CSAAS. During pretrial motions the month before, the
trial court overruled Parejascruz’s objections, which were based in part on
Evidence Code section 352, regarding the admissibility of CSAAS evidence.
Ward told the jury she had no knowledge about the facts of this
matter. She conceded that children can lie about being molested and that
CSAAS cannot be used as a tool to diagnose whether sexual abuse occurred in
a specific case. Ward explained that, assuming that abuse had occurred,
CSAAS covered five types of “counterintuitive” behaviors that could be
displayed by victims: secrecy, helplessness, entrapment, delayed
unconvincing disclosure, and recantation.
C. Jury Instruction on CSAAS and Verdicts
Before its deliberations began, the jury was instructed on
CSAAS, based on CALCRIM No. 1193, as follows: “You have heard testimony
from . . . Ward regarding [CSAAS]. [¶] . . . Ward’s testimony about [CSAAS]
is not evidence that the defendant committed any of the crimes charged
against him. [¶] You may consider this evidence only in deciding whether or
not [the alleged victims’] conduct was not inconsistent with the conduct of
someone who has been molested, and in evaluating the believability of their
testimony.” The court also instructed the jury with standard instructions on,
inter alia, the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt (CALCRIM
No. 220) and the jury’s prerogative to accept or reject expert witness
testimony (CALCRIM No. 332).
5
The jury found Parejascruz guilty on all counts related to J.M.
3
(counts 5–10) but hung on all counts related to the sisters (counts 1–4). The
trial court sentenced Parejascruz to a total prison term of 45 years to life,
consisting of a 30-years-to-life indeterminate sentence and a consecutive
15-year determinate sentence. Parejascruz timely filed this appeal.
DISCUSSION
Parejascruz asserts four grounds for reversal: (1) that expert
testimony on CSAAS should have been prohibited as unduly prejudicial,
pursuant to Evidence Code section 352; (2) that the admission of the
testimony deprived Parejascruz of due process and a fair trial because it
unfairly corroborated victim testimonies; (3) that the jury instruction on
CSAAS was prejudicially erroneous; and (4) that the instruction “lessened the
prosecution’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
A. Challenge to Admission of CSAAS Expert Testimony
“A trial court’s decision to admit evidence is reviewed for an
abuse of discretion. [Citation.]” (People v. Lapenias (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th
162, 170 (Lapenias).) “The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial
court’s decision exceeded the bounds of reason. [Citation.] . . . [T]he reviewing
court measures the evidence presented to the trial court against the range of
options permitted by the established legal criteria. [Citation.] The scope of
the trial court’s discretion is limited by the governing law, and an action that
‘“‘transgresses the confines of the applicable principles of law’”’ constitutes an
3
The jury therefore did not find true the sentencing
enhancement allegation on multiple victims. Subsequently, the prosecutor
added two counts of misdemeanor assault (regarding the sisters) that
Parejascruz pleaded guilty to (§ 240). The court then dismissed the four
original counts that the jury had hung on.
6
abuse of discretion. [Citation.]” (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit
Healthcare REIT, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 789.)
Parejascruz’s first contention relies on Evidence Code section
352, which states: “The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its
probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its
admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create
substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of
misleading the jury.” On the admissibility of CSAAS evidence, the governing
authority remains People v. McAlpin (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1289 (McAlpin). There,
the California Supreme Court affirmed the convictions of a man who was
accused of molesting a minor whose mother did not report to anyone her
daughter’s disclosure of molestation to her. (Id. at pp. 1294, 1296 [minor
reported to school personnel one year after telling mother].)
Relevant to this appeal, the McAlpin court approved of the
following two rules that had developed in intermediate appellate courts to
that point: (1) “expert testimony on the common reactions of child
molestation victims is not admissible to prove that the complaining witness
has in fact been sexually abused,” but (2) such testimony “is admissible to
rehabilitate such witness’s credibility when the defendant suggests that the
child’s conduct after the incident—e.g., a delay in reporting—is inconsistent
with his or her testimony claiming molestation. [Citations.]” (McAlpin, supra,53 Cal.3d at pp. 1300–1301.) McAlpin reasoned that “‘[s]uch expert testimony
is needed to disabuse jurors of commonly held misconceptions about child
sexual abuse, and to explain the emotional antecedents of abused children’s
seemingly self-impeaching behavior.’” (Id. at p. 1301.) The high court applied
7
the above rules without distinguishing between whether the victim or the
victim’s parent was the one who had delayed reporting. (Ibid.)
Recently, this court applied McAlpin’s holdings in Lapenias to
affirm convictions of a man who had sexually abused his minor stepdaughter.
(Lapenias, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at pp. 167, 171, 183.) As in this matter,
several years elapsed before the stepdaughter disclosed the abuse she
suffered to her friend. (Id. at p. 168.)
We held, inter alia, that the trial court had not erred in allowing
the prosecution to present the jury with CSAAS evidence (Lapenias, supra,
67 Cal.App.5th at p. 175) and our analysis there covers Parejascruz’s
challenges in this appeal. On Evidence Code section 352, we held that,
“[g]iven the evidence regarding [the victim]’s reactions to her sexual abuse
was, in fact, consistent with the proffered CSAAS evidence, we agree with the
trial court that the CSAAS evidence was ‘sufficiently probative to be
admissible’” (id. at p. 172; id. at p. 171 [must be triggered by trial
contentions]) and that the “[trial] court made a reasoned judgment that the
probative value of the proffered CSAAS evidence was substantially
outweighed by any prejudicial effect” under Evidence Code section 352 (id. at
p. 174). On due process, we held that, “[g]enerally, a [trial] court’s compliance
with the rules of evidence does not violate a defendant’s right to due process.”
(Ibid.)
Parejascruz’s briefing does not mention Lapenias, which we apply
to this appeal to conclude that his contentions on the admission of CSAAS
evidence are without merit. It remains a well-established principle of
California law that “[w]hile CSAAS evidence is not relevant to prove the
alleged sexual abuse occurred [in a specific case], . . . CSAAS evidence is
8
relevant for the limited purpose of evaluating the credibility of an alleged
child victim of sexual abuse.” (Lapenias, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at p. 171.)
Parejascruz asserts that caselaw “need[s] to be reexamined,” but
does not offer any meaningful analysis of the probative value of CSAAS.
(Lapenias, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at p. 174 [“Evidence is not ‘prejudicial’
merely because it is harmful to a criminal defendant’s case”].) For example,
Parejascruz asserts “[a] jury easily can misconstrue CSAAS evidence,” but
does not discuss CSAAS’s value in explaining counterintuitive reactions to
uncommon human experiences. (See Evid. Code, § 801 [expert testimony
should be “[r]elated to a subject that is sufficiently beyond common
experience” and be reasonably reliable].)
Parejascruz has not shown that admitting Ward’s expert
testimony on CSAAS violated applicable law and therefore amounted to an
abuse of trial court discretion. Similarly, given it is undisputed that Ward did
not offer testimony specific to the abuse alleged by J.M. in this matter, we
reject Parejascruz’s conclusory assertion that Ward supported J.M.’s account
of specific abuse in a manner that violated Parejascruz’s right to due process.
B. Challenge to Jury Instruction
Next, “[t]he independent or de novo standard of review is
applicable in assessing whether instructions correctly state the law [citations]
and also whether instructions effectively direct a finding adverse to a
defendant by removing an issue from the jury’s consideration. [Citations.]”
(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218.) “‘The challenged instruction is
viewed “in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record to
determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the
instruction in an impermissible manner.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.] We assume
9
the jurors are intelligent people and are capable of understanding and
correlating the instructions given. [Citation.]” (People v. Ocegueda (2023)
92 Cal.App.5th 548, 557.) “Instructions should be interpreted, if possible, so
as to support the judgment rather than defeat it if they are reasonably
susceptible to such interpretation.” (People v. Laskiewicz (1986)
176 Cal.App.3d 1254, 1258.)
Parejascruz’s argument for prejudicial error focuses on the
following italicized language in the final paragraph of the earlier-quoted
instruction on CSAAS: “You may consider this evidence only in deciding
whether or not [the sisters’] and [J.M.]’s conduct was not inconsistent with
the conduct of someone who has been molested, and in evaluating the
believability of their testimony.” (Italics added.)
The italicized segment is verbatim the same as the model jury
instruction, CALCRIM No. 1193.4 Parejascruz argues: “The admonition that
the jurors could consider the CSAAS testimony in appraising the complaining
witnesses’ credibility was erroneous because the jurors should be instructed
simply that CSAAS testimony is admissible solely to explain that the victims’
response to the sexual abuse is not inconsistent with molestation, and the
expert’s testimony may not be relied on to evaluate whether the victims’
molestation claim is true.” In other words, Parejascruz argues the segment
4
The paragraph of the model instruction that includes the
segment states: “You may consider this evidence [i.e., CSAAS evidence] only
in deciding whether or not ______’s <insert name of alleged victim of abuse>
conduct was consistent with the conduct of someone who has been molested,
and in evaluating the believability of the alleged victim.” (CALCRIM No.
1193.) There is no material difference between the versions of CALCRIM No.
1193 that was used here and in Lapenias’s trial (Lapenias, supra,
67 Cal.App.5th at p. 175).
10
transgressed McAlpin’s prohibition against using CSAAS evidence “to prove
the alleged sexual abuse occurred [in a specific case].” (Lapenias, supra,
67 Cal.App.5th at p. 171.)
Parejascruz provides no reason to depart from our analysis in
Lapenias, which included reviewing a challenge to CALCRIM No. 1193.
(Lapenias, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at pp. 171, 175–176 [“slightly modified”
version of CALCRIM No. 1193 accurately informed jury about governing law,
including CSAAS’s irrelevance for deciding whether “the alleged sexual abuse
[underlying the case] occurred”].) We concluded the version of CALCRIM
No. 1193 used there conformed to the two McAlpin rules we quoted above:
“CSAAS evidence ‘is not admissible to prove that the complaining witness has
in fact been sexually abused; it is admissible to rehabilitate such witness’s
credibility when the defendant suggests that the child’s conduct after the
incident—e.g., a delay in reporting—is inconsistent with his or her testimony
claiming molestation.’” (Lapenias, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at p. 175.)
We need not decide the parties’ dispute about whether
Parejascruz forfeited his instruction challenge by failing to assert it in the
trial court. (Compare People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1087
[argument that jury instruction misstated law not forfeited despite failure to
object at trial] with People v. Bedolla (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 535, 544 [“not
convinced” substantial rights were affected as contemplated by Pen. Code,
§ 1259].) We assume without deciding that he did not forfeit his challenge
and conclude that, in any case, it provides no ground for reversal because it is
meritless.
Parejascruz’s jury instruction challenge is unpersuasive because
it rests on a premise that the jury was not able to understand and apply the
11
instructions on how to implement the presented information about CSAAS.
(People v. Ocegueda, supra, 92 Cal.App.5th at p. 557.) His premise is not only
contrary to general appellate review principles, it is contrary to the record in
this specific case. Parejascruz does not discuss the ordinary meaning of the
other instructions surrounding the segment. He therefore has not shown a
“‘“reasonable likelihood the jury applied the instruction [segment] in an
impermissible manner.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Ocegueda, supra,
92 Cal.App.5th at p. 557.) Moreover, the fact that the jury found J.M.’s claims
sufficiently credible to convict on her assertions while being unable to reach
verdicts on the sisters’ claims, based on the same deliberation instructions,
reinforces a conclusion that the jury soundly applied the challenged
instruction, instead of misunderstanding it.
The same reasoning applies to Parejascruz’s contention that the
trial court’s instruction “lessened the prosecution’s burden of proving guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt,” since it is undisputed that the standard
instruction on proving criminal liability beyond a reasonable doubt
(CALCRIM No. 220) guided the jury’s deliberations. In sum, there was no
instructional error.
12
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
O’LEARY, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
MOTOIKE, J.
GOODING, J.
13