People v. Mendoza CA3

Filed 5/12/25 P. v. Mendoza CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098622

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20FE005668)

v.

MARC FAUSTINO MENDOZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Marc Faustino Mendoza guilty of multiple felonies, including possessing child pornography and four counts of committing a forcible lewd act on a child under the age of 14. On appeal, Mendoza argues that the trial court erred: (1) when it instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 1191B, which permitted the jury to conclude he had a propensity to commit sexual offenses based on a finding that he committed a sexual offense charged in the instant prosecution; and (2) when it instructed

1

the jury with CALCRIM No. 1190 in conjunction with CALCRIM No. 301, contending the instructions lightened the prosecution’s burden of proof by bolstering the victim’s testimony. We affirm. BACKGROUND When Doe was around four years old, Mendoza started dating her mother. When Doe was 12, she moved to the Sacramento area to live with her mother and Mendoza, whom she saw as a father figure. When she was 13, Mendoza began sexually abusing her. A search of Mendoza’s cell phone by police uncovered images of prepubescent girls and their vaginas, and at Mendoza’s trial an expert witness opined that the images were child pornography. An amended information charged Mendoza with numerous felony offenses, including four counts of committing a forcible lewd act with a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)),1 and possession of images depicting a minor engaging in sexual conduct (§ 311.11, subd. (a)), as defined in section 311.4, subdivision (d). After the parties presented their evidence, the trial court instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 301—that the testimony of a single witness can prove any fact, provided jurors carefully consider all the evidence before reaching that conclusion. The court also instructed, under CALCRIM No. 1190, that a conviction for a sexual assault offense may be based solely on the testimony of the complaining witness. The trial court also instructed the jury that the prosecution had presented evidence that Mendoza committed the sexual assault against Doe, as well as possession and/or production of child pornography, as charged in the amended information. If the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mendoza committed one or more of those offenses, the jury could—but was not required to—conclude from that evidence that Mendoza had a