People v. Ahern CA2/1
Filed 9/10/14 P. v. Ahern CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
THE PEOPLE, B248596
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA068747) v.
KEVIN MICHAEL AHERN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Joseph A. Brandolino, Judge. Affirmed. Vanessa Place, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Yun K. Lee and William H. Shin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ________________________________
Kevin Ahern appeals from a judgment following a jury trial in which he was convicted of lewd acts upon a child of 14 years (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (c)(1)) and oral copulation with a person under 16 years of age (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (b)(2)). He contends the trial court abused its discretion in excluding evidence of photographs and online content of the victim engaged in graphic or sexual behavior. We affirm. Statement of Facts 1. Evidence Presented at Trial I.H. was 13 years old and living in Hidden Hills with her family when Ahern sent her a message through Facebook on July 18, 2011. Ahern was 37 years old. They began to exchange Facebook messages, through which I.H. told Ahern she was only 13 years old. A few days later, I.H. and Ahern exchanged phone numbers and began to send each other text messages. They discussed their common interests, I.H.’s interest in writing and drawing, and events going on in their lives. Ahern repeatedly said such things as, “Sweet dreams [I.H.]. Nite nite,” followed by a heart symbol, and frequently asked I.H. to meet him. When I.H. asked him why he wanted to meet, he responded, “You seem so sweet and down to earth. I love that! I just rly wanna get to know u better. Hang out.” Finally, on August 9, 2011, I.H. and Ahern agreed to meet at a local shopping area. I.H. rode her bike there and met Ahern at a bookstore. Ahern gave her a hug, and they left the bookstore to sit outside at some tables and talk. Ahern told I.H. he was 22 years old. After talking for some time, I.H. went home. That night, Ahern sent I.H. a text message which stated, “[I.H.]! It was so wonderful meeting u and hanging out with you!!! You’re beautiful in every way. . . truly. I can’t wait to see you again,” followed by a heart symbol. Later he wrote, “You’re gorgeous, srsly,” and “I wanna come over and cuddle up and watch movies with you!!!,” followed by a heart symbol. They then proceeded to make plans to get together for a “movie night.” I.H. agreed to meet Ahern at his house on August 12, 2011. Once there, they went into his bedroom and Ahern showed her some of his music and music videos. Ahern then put on a movie and they laid down on his bed. At some point, Ahern and I.H. undressed.
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)