People v. Lewis CA3

Filed 4/29/15 P. v. Lewis CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C076108

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CM038184)

v.

THOMAS LEE LEWIS, SR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

After a trial to the court, defendant Thomas Lee Lewis challenges the trial court finding him guilty of committing a lewd act on a child under 14. Defendant claims admission of the victim’s out-of-court statements violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause, and the erroneous admission of those statements prejudiced him in two ways. He first contends that without the victim’s statements in evidence, his out-of-court inculpatory statements should not have been admitted because the evidence offered by the prosecution was otherwise insufficient to establish the required corpus delicti. He then contends that even if his inculpatory statements were

1

admissible, his conviction was improper because those statements, without an established corpus delicti, were an insufficient basis for his conviction. Because we conclude that defendant’s inculpatory statements were properly admitted into evidence and that the record contains sufficient independent evidence to establish the corpus delicti of the crime charged even without the victim’s statements, we find no prejudicial error and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In March 2013, the then three-year-old J. R. stopped attending Grandma Linda’s Day Care where she had been going five days a week for a year and one-half. The adults generally present at the day care were defendant, his wife Linda, and his mother-in-law. J. R. stopped attending Grandma Linda’s Day Care because, according to her mother, Pearl, J. R. came home one day and told Pearl that she had been “touched [i]nappropriately” and that “something bad had happened to her at Grandma Linda’s.” Pearl went to the Valley Oaks licensing department the next day and made a complaint. Shortly thereafter, Butte County Sheriff’s Detective Christopher D’Amato became involved with the investigation. Detective D’Amato contacted Pearl to arrange a forensic interview of J. R. A forensic interview is a nonconfrontational interview of an alleged child victim conducted by a specially trained Department of Children’s Services employee. According to Detective D’Amato, the “prime focus” of the interview is to provide information for law enforcement. During the interview, J. R. told the interviewer that defendant had pulled down her underpants, licked her vagina, and told her not to tell anyone. Detective D’Amato and the prosecuting attorney, Stacy Edwards, watched the interview from a separate room. The interviewer took several breaks during which Detective D’Amato and Edwards suggested questions. The recording of the interview was turned over to the Butte County Sheriff’s Department. Detective D’Amato then called defendant and arranged to meet at the Sheriff’s Department. Detective D’Amato began the conversation by telling defendant that he was