People v. Richmond CA2/6
Filed 1/26/16 P. v. Richmond CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B258109 (Super. Ct. No. KA102775) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)
v.
JENNA MARIE RICHMOND,
Defendant and Appellant.
A jury found Jenna Marie Richmond guilty of oral copulation of a person under 14 years of age (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (c)(1))1 and lewd acts upon a child (§ 288, subd. (a)). She was sentenced to five years in state prison. We conditionally reverse. The trial court treated the claim of psychotherapist-patient and medical records privilege as absolute. The court failed to balance the defendant's right to cross-examine witnesses with the policies the privilege was intended to promote. FACTS The Leroy Haynes Center ("the Center') is a residential treatment facility for severely emotionally disabled children. The Center is a level 12 facility. A level 12 facility is one step below a locked psychiatric facility.
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
In 2012, Richmond was in charge of a cottage at the Center. Her supervisor encouraged her to use the Center's van to do things with the children on days when they did not have school. Activities included going to the Glendora Recreation Center and the Donut Man. Angel, born in September 1999, was placed in Richmond's cottage in June and July of 2013. Q. was Angel's roommate. Q. testified that in July 2013, he and Angel decided to go to the Donut Man. Richmond drove them in the Center's van. When they arrived at the Donut Man, Q. left the van to go to the bathroom. When he returned to the van, he saw Richmond's head going up and down near Angel's penis. Q. thought she was giving him a "blow job." Q. waited outside the van until they were finished. He knew they were finished when Angel opened the van door. They all went into the donut shop, purchased donuts and returned to the Center. Q. did not report the incident because Angel asked him not to. On a different occasion, Q. was using a computer in the staff office. The door to the bathroom was open and he could see inside. He saw Angel and Richmond in the bathroom. Richmond was bending over with her pants down. It looked like Angel had his penis in her vagina. After Angel left the bathroom, Q. told him "he smelled like pussy." Angel told Q. he had been having sex. Q. did not report what he had seen for about three months. By that time Angel told him he could report the incidents. Angel was angry with Richmond because she blamed him for taking her keys. Q. admitted he was also in trouble with Richmond. Q. was 12 years old at the time he saw the incidents. Angel testified that he did not remember ever going to the Donut Man with Richmond. Angel denied that he and Richmond ever had oral sex or intercourse; that he touched Richmond in a sexual manner or was touched by Richmond in a sexual manner; that he kissed Richmond, was involved in a relationship with Richmond, or ever wore Richmond's class ring. Angel testified that while he was at the Center, he saw Kelly Price-Jarvis, a therapist, about once a week. He denied telling her that inappropriate sexual activity had
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)