People v. Kazee

Opinion

KAUS, P. J.

Defendant was charged with seven counts of incest. (Pen. Code, § 285.) The victim on counts I through V was his daughter, C. His other daughter, S., was the victim named in counts VI and VII. Defendant was found guilty on two counts involving C. and one count concerning S. After abortive MDSO proceedings, defendant was sentenced to concurrent prison terms.

On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel wisely does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions. Rather, he claims that the trial was infected by error in three respects: First, the

[595]

admission of evidence of sexual relations by each of the daughters with other men, with implicit or explicit suggestions that such relations were encouraged by defendant; second, the admission of evidence of beatings and other acts of brutality on the part of defendant toward the victims and other members of his family; and, third, the admission of evidence of sexual relations between defendant and two older stepsisters of S. and C.—daughters of defendant’s wife from a prior relationship.

The first two points have no merit whatever. Issues concerning the sexual relationships between the victims and other men were injected into the trial by defendant’s own counsel and for a very good reason: the defense was a complete denial, coupled with a claim that the victims’ accusations against defendant were triggered by his sometimes rather vigorous opposition to the daughters’ sex life.

Defendant’s assaultive conduct toward members of his family was legitimately developed by the prosecution—without objection, incidentally—to show a reason for the victims’ submission to defendant’s sexual demands.

1

The only point worth discussing is the third: the admission, over objection, of evidence that defendant had forced himself on the victims’ stepsisters.

2

' No real contention is made by the People that the modus operand! of defendant, vis-a-vis D. and R, evidenced such striking similarities that it points to defendant as the perpetrator of the offenses against S. and C. Indeed, there was no issue of identity. The case is, however, on all fours with