People v. Narsappa CA4/1
Filed 11/21/24 P. v. Narsappa CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D083165
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS310809)
NANDU NARSAPPA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Marcella O. McLaughlin, Judge. Affirmed. Bruce L. Kotler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Genevieve Herbert, Deputy Attorneys General.
A jury found Nandu Narsappa1 guilty of one count of forcible lewd act on a child under the age of 14 (count 1) and five counts of lewd acts on a child (counts 2–6). The jury also found true an allegation that Narsappa took advantage of a position of trust and confidence. Narsappa was sentenced to eight years in prison. On appeal from the judgment of conviction, Narsappa asserts insufficient evidence supports the jury’s finding of force on count one. For reasons we explain, we conclude there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict and affirm the judgment. FACTUAL BACKGROUND At the time of the crimes, the victim, K.C., was 12 years old and lived next door to Narsappa and his family. K.C. lived at home with her father, mother, and sister. K.C. and her sister walked past Narsappa’s home on their way to school. Narsappa and K.C.’s father became acquainted when Narsappa approached K.C.’s father while he was working on his car in the driveway. Narsappa and K.C.’s father had a friendly relationship. On June 6, 2019, K.C.’s father invited Narsappa to K.C.’s birthday party at their home. Narsappa brought gifts for K.C. He also offered to tutor K.C. in math and to give her a job cleaning his fish tank. K.C. and her younger sister began visiting Narsappa’s home about twice per week, for a few hours at a time. During the visits, Narsappa tutored the girls in math, then the girls would clean his fish tank and spend time with his dog. During one visit, Narsappa brought K.C. into his garage to look at a watch he bought for her. Narsappa reached his hands out and walked toward her. She walked backwards as he neared, forcing her back against the wall.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)