People v. Villalobos CA6

Filed 12/29/25 P. v. Villalobos CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H053058 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 20CR003412)

v.

GUSTAVO ESPINOZA VILLALOBOS,

Defendant and Appellant.

After a trial, Gustavo Espinoza Villalobos was convicted of three counts of lewd acts on a child and one count of child molestation, and the trial court sentenced him to 25 years to life in prison. Villalobos now appeals based on a single argument: that the trial court granted a motion in limine to admit expert testimony concerning child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (CSAAS) without requiring the prosecutor to lay a proper foundation. As explained below, we reject this argument because at trial the prosecution’s expert indisputably laid an adequate foundation for his CSAAS opinions. The judgment is therefore affirmed. I. BACKGROUND Villalobos was charged with seven counts of committing a lewd act upon a child in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a) (counts 1-7) and one count of misdemeanor child molestation in violation of Penal Code section 647.6, subdivision (a)(1) (count 8). The first five counts concerned Villalobos’ youngest

stepson. The seventh and eighth counts concerned, respectively, Villalobos’ two older stepsons. The sixth count concerned a next-door neighbor. Before trial, the People filed a motion in limine seeking, among other things, to admit expert testimony from Dr. Blake Carmichael, a clinical psychologist, concerning CSAAS. The People argued that the defense was likely to attack the credibility of the victims based on common myths and misconceptions such as that children disclose molestation immediately and in full detail, and that Dr. Carmichael’s testimony would help to dispel these misconceptions. At the hearing on the motions in limine, Villalobos opposed on the ground that the myths identified by the prosecution were common knowledge and therefore not a proper subject of expert testimony. In response, the prosecutor contended, albeit without presenting any evidence, that many people still do not understand the myths at issue. Noting that it had just finished a jury trial involving similar charges and that “the common myths and misconceptions about victims of child molest[ation] were, again, quite apparent during voir dire selection,” the trial court agreed with the prosecution and admitted Dr. Carmichael’s testimony. At trial, before Dr. Carmichael testified concerning common myths and misconceptions concerning victims of child sexual abuse, the prosecutor asked Dr. Carmichael whether there are some typical myths and misconceptions. Dr. Carmichael responded that there were and that “recent research . . . shows that.” In particular, Dr. Carmichael noted that “[r]esearch by Grangenett, Saint George, Delahunty,” and others had “found that the lay public, [and] general public, still holds a lot of myths and misconceptions about kids who have been sexually abused.” Although Dr. Carmichael acknowledged that there was a lot of public media concerning sexual abuse in the last 10 to 15 years and child sexual basis was more in the public eye, he nonetheless testified that, “based on the last 20 years and even more recently, we see that there are still myths and misconceptions and need for education about this topic.”