People v. Medina CA1/3

Filed 5/30/14 P. v. Medina CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A137760 v. GUSTAVO R. MEDINA, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC074065) Defendant and Appellant.

Gustavo R. Medina (appellant) appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of 12 counts of lewd acts on a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)1) and found true the special allegations of substantial sexual conduct (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)) and continuous sexual abuse (§§ 288.5, subd. (a), 1203.066, subd. (b)). He contends the trial court erred by allowing a social worker who had previously interviewed the victims to testify as an expert on the topic of Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome. We affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On March 7, 2012, an information was filed charging appellant with 12 counts of lewd acts on a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)). The information alleged as to counts 2, 4 and 10 that there was substantial sexual conduct (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)), and alleged as to count 5 that there was continuous sexual abuse (§§ 288.5, subd. (a), 1203.066, subd. (b)).

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

1

At a jury trial, Julia R. testified that she lived in South San Francisco with her 16- year-old daughter, M., her 13-year-old son, G., and her 11-year-old daughter, S. She was married to appellant from 1998 to 2003, and appellant was the biological father of G. and S. On Sunday, June 12, 2011, Julia R. took the children to San Francisco to celebrate S.’s birthday. Appellant, who worked as a limousine driver, picked up G. and S. later that afternoon and took them to his home. On June 15, 2011, Julia R. was home with her boyfriend and S. M. was out with a friend and G. was at his cousin’s house. Julia R. told S. that she was going to ask appellant to take care of G. and S. the next day while she worked because M., who usually babysat G. and S. while Julia R. worked, was scheduled to go camping and would be unavailable. That night, S. showed a note to her mother that she had written on her iPad, which stated, “I don’t know what you call it, but my dad rapes me every time I spend the night with him. I have always wanted to tell you, but I don’t know how. I am sorry.” Julia R. was shocked, sad, and angry, and asked S. if she knew what the word rape meant. S. responded, “yes.” Julia R. called G. and had her boyfriend call M. so that they could take all of the children to the hospital. After picking G. up, Julia R. asked G. if his father had ever touched him, or if he had ever seen him touch S. G. responded, “no.” M. asked Julia R. several times what was going on, but Julia R. said she could not talk about it. Once at the hospital, Julia R. asked her boyfriend to stay in the car with M. and G. while she brought S. inside to wait for the triage nurse. As they waited, a woman came up to Julia R. and asked her if she was okay; Julia R. responded that she was not. At that point, M. came inside the hospital, crying and upset, and said, “mom, he promised if I never told you he wouldn’t do that to [S.].” Julia R. grabbed M. and went outside, and as M. repeated what she had just said, the two cried together. G., who realized what was going on, also began to cry, and they all “just stood there together.” When Mother went back inside, a police officer came over to speak to her and S. M. and S. were interviewed at Keller Center, located inside a hospital, and the interviews were recorded.