count 2) 3; domestic violence (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count 3); assault with force likely to
cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); count 4); and criminal threats (§ 422; count
5). Two concerned the August 2014 incident: criminal threats (§ 422; count 6) and
assault with a deadly weapon, i.e., a glass vase (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 7). And count
8, criminal threats, related to the February 2015 incident (§ 422; count 8). The
prosecution alleged two prior serious felony convictions under section 667, subdivision
(a)(1), which were also alleged as strike priors under the same section, subdivisions (b)–
(i), and section 1170.12. At Sexton's request, the prior serious felony conviction
allegations were bifurcated.
E. The Trial
2 All statutory references are to the Penal Code except where otherwise indicated.
3 Penal Code section 288a was amended without substantive change and renumbered to section 287, effective January 1, 2019. (Stats. 2018, ch. 423, § 49.) 7
1. The Children's Testimony
Both of Jane's and Sexton's children testified. Their daughter testified that when
the family was living together, she witnessed loud arguments and two incidents in which
Sexton hit Jane. She said that when she was living with Jane and her brother at her aunt's
house, Sexton came to the house and "pulled up a gun," after which she and her brother
ran away. The son testified that although he never saw Sexton hit Jane, he recalled the
morning his father came to his aunt's house with a gun. He thought that Sexton was
going to shoot Jane.
2. Expert Testimony on Intimate Partner Battering and Domestic Abuse
A detective and master investigator for the Riverside County Sheriff's Department
testified as an expert on intimate partner battering and domestic abuse. She discussed the
ways in which a victim of domestic violence can become slowly acclimated to various
forms of abuse and the challenges victims face in recognizing abuse when the abusive
behavior occurs gradually. The expert opined relationships that include intimate partner
battering typically cycle through several phases. First, there is a "tension building phase
where things are getting worse," followed by an "explosion phase where the crisis
moment happens," and then a "honeymoon phase," after which victims often return to
their battering partners. She also asserted that during the honeymoon phase of this cycle,
it is common for victims to not cooperate with law enforcement's investigation of their
partners, to recant their statements, and provide a new narrative.
8
3. Incidents of Domestic Violence Against Other Women
In addition to Jane, three other women testified about abuse by Sexton. The first,
Sexton's ex-wife, stated that in August 2005 after an argument about finances, she awoke
to find Sexton choking her. She hit him and kicked him in defense, and he punched her
in the face. She also explained that he was engaged in heavy drug use at the time. The
second, an ex-girlfriend, testified that in April 1997 Sexton attacked her by hitting her,
choking her, and pinning her to the ground. She reported the incident to the Phoenix
Police Department. The third, another ex-girlfriend, testified that in November 1999
Sexton hit her several times during an argument, which left a bump on her head, and
threatened to kill her.
4. Sexton's Defense
Sexton elected to testify in his own defense and denied all incidents of abuse
against Jane. He admitted he had abused the three other women as they described in their
testimony. He acknowledged his jealousy during the early part of his relationship with
Jane, asserting that she would frequently receive calls and text messages from sometimes
drunk ex-boyfriends, but he denied pulling Jane out of the shower by her hair or being
violent with her. He discussed his concern about Jane and the children living with Jane's
sister, whom he believed to be unstable. He admitted buying a gun, which was illegal
due to his status as an ex-felon. He did not believe that Jane was aware he owned a gun.
As to the incidents giving rise to the specific allegations, Sexton admitted that he and
Jane engaged in oral sex during the July 2014 incident but stated it was consensual, and
he denied choking her and attempting sexual intercourse against her will. He denied the
9
allegations relating to the August 2014 incident. On the February 2015 criminal threat
allegations, he admitted calling Jane on the day in question but denied making the
specific threat alleged and denied threatening to kill her.
F. Verdict and Sentencing
The jury found Sexton guilty on counts 1 through 5 (the July 2014 incident) and
count 8 (the February 2015 incident). He was acquitted on count 6 for criminal threats
during the August 2014 incident. On count 7, arising from that same incident, the jury
found him not guilty of assault with a deadly weapon but deadlocked on the lesser
included offense of simple assault under section 240, on which the trial court declared a
mistrial. Following discharge of the jury, the court found the allegations of Sexton's prior
convictions to be true, but exercised its discretion under section 1385 and struck one of
the two strike priors. (See People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.)
Sexton was ultimately sentenced to state prison for a total term of 29 years and
four months as follows: 12 years for count 2, the designated principal count (doubled the
middle term); a consecutive two-year term each for counts 1, 3, and 4 (one-third the
middle term, doubled); a consecutive one-year and four-month term for count 8 (one-
third the middle term, doubled); the sentence for count 5 stayed (§ 654); and a
consecutive 10-year term for the two five-year serious felony enhancements.
10
DISCUSSION
A. The Intimate Partner Battery Jury Instruction Was Not Erroneous.
The trial court provided the jury with CALCRIM No. 850, "Testimony On
Intimate Partner Battering and Its Effects: Credibility of Complaining Witness," in its
standard form as follows:
"You have heard testimony from [an expert] regarding the effect of intimate partner battering.
"[The expert's] testimony about intimate partner battering is not evidence that the defendant committed any of the crimes charged against him.
"You may consider this evidence only in deciding whether or not [Jane's] conduct was not inconsistent with the conduct of someone who has been abused, and in evaluating the believability of her testimony."
Sexton challenges CALCRIM No. 850 in two ways. First, he claims it is
"impossible to allow the jury to use expert testimony about intimate partner battering 'in
evaluating the believability of [the alleged victim's] testimony', . . . without allowing
them to use it as proof that the complaining witness is telling the truth." Second, he
contests the narrowness of "the crimes charged against," arguing that this phrase "does
not preclude the jury from using intimate partner battering evidence as proof the
defendant committed uncharged crimes, from which the jury can then infer the defendant
was disposed to commit the charged crimes."
In response, the People argue that the claim was forfeited for failure to object. On
the merits, they contend it fails because of the instruction's express meaning, the court's
11
appropriate admonishment that the jury was not to consider the expert testimony as
evidence of Sexton's guilt, and that regardless, any error was harmless.
We review the claim of instructional error de novo, " 'in the context of the
instructions as a whole and the trial record.' " (People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th
774, 831; People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 733.) Generally, an instruction may
not be challenged on appeal unless the party made an appropriate objection at trial.
(People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1087.) But a challenge may be raised
where the claim, like Sexton's here, alleges that the instruction was not correct in law or
affected the defendant's substantial rights. (§ 1259; People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th
1002, 1011–1012 [not correct in law]; People v. Andersen (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1241,
1249 ["Ascertaining whether claimed instructional error affected the substantial rights of
the defendant necessarily requires an examination of the merits of the claim"].)
As presented to the jury—i.e. in full, alongside the rest of the applicable
instructions—CALCRIM No. 850 provides a clear, important and helpful reference.
When jurors must decide whether to believe a witness's testimony, one thing they may
reasonably consider is whether the witness's conduct is consistent with their expectations
for an individual under the circumstances of the case. When those circumstances are the
routine sort, the analysis might be straightforward. For instance, if the victim of an
alleged carjacking provides wildly inconsistent descriptions of the perpetrator at different
times, common sense may suggest that the victim's recollection of specific details should
be questioned.
12
But when the facts are farther afield from a typical juror's life experience, or when
they contrast with expectations for what may appear to be similar crimes, it can be
helpful to hear from an expert on the relevant reference point. Intimate partner battering
often presents such a case. Jurors typically expect the victim of a serious crime to report
the incident as soon as possible. And they often view a significantly changing story as
evidence that the allegations may be less than truthful. But as the expert in this case
discussed, victims of intimate partner battering often act in ways that contrast with the
actions of victims of other serious crimes. With that information in mind, the jury would
have a more accurate reference for how to judge the victim's behavior and the consistency
of the testimony. Rather than consider the testimony in relation to that of a typical
witness or an alleged victim of serious assault generally, the jury ought to evaluate it with
respect to an alleged victim of intimate partner battering.
Sexton does not challenge the purpose or principles supporting the use of the
instruction, but argues that the text gets in its own way. Specifically, he points to the last
phrase of the last sentence, which instructs the jury to consider the expert testimony "in
evaluating the believability of the [alleged victim's] testimony." Because that phrase
"authorized the jury to consider [the expert] testimony as evidence that Jane Doe was
telling the truth, the jury would naturally infer that because the expert had described
behaviors that matched those of Jane Doe in this case, she must have been telling the
truth when she testified to abuse and lying when she denied it."
But Sexton's argument skates through its analysis of the phrase on which it relies,
and it fails to interpret the text in context. The allegedly impermissible phrase—"and in
13
evaluating the believability of [Jane's] testimony"—expressly indicates that the jury is to
evaluate the believability of Jane's testimony, not mechanically transfer their evaluation
of the expert to Jane's statements. Furthermore, the trial court provided instructions on
evaluating conflicting evidence and on limited purpose evidence in general, so they
understood that "[w]hat is important is whether the testimony or any other evidence
convinces" them. (CALCRIM No. 302.)
Read in context, the last sentence of the instruction contains a direction with
specific and general aspects. Specifically, the jury is to use the expert testimony to help
ground its analysis of the consistency of the complaining witness's conduct (by using a
more informed reference point). The jury is then to use this 'consistency' analysis in its
general evaluation of the believability of the complaining witness's testimony. In
isolation, the breadth of the language in the last phrase might allow for a question
regarding the manner in which the expert's testimony ought to bear on the jury's
evaluation of the believability of the witness, but the first part of the sentence effectively
resolves any such confusion. Reasonable jurors would not understand the instruction to
mean that if they find the characteristics of intimate partner battering to be satisfied, this
indicates that Jane was necessarily telling the truth. (See People v. Brackins (July 2,
Sexton's additional argument also fails to persuade. The second sentence of
CALCRIM No. 850 informs the jury that "[The expert's] testimony about intimate partner
battering is not evidence that the defendant committed any of the crimes charged against
him." Following the introductory sentence, this is the first direction provided to the jury.
14
The instruction is thus structured to emphasize that above all else, the expert testimony
does not constitute evidence of guilt on any of the charges. Sexton argues that it implies
the inversion of its final phrase, that the testimony is evidence that Sexton committed any
crimes of which he was not charged.
But we reject the suggestion that any reasonable juror would read the instruction
in this manner. The importance of avoiding the implication that the expert testimony
constitutes evidence of guilt is a good reason for the structure of the instruction as given.
Moreover, there is no logical reason for any juror to believe the expert's testimony would
be evidence the defendant committed the uncharged crimes but not the charged crimes.
We therefore find the trial court did not err in giving CALCRIM No. 850 and
furthermore, that given the evidence before the jury, any error was harmless under either
the standard for federal constitutional errors (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18,
24) or those of only state law (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836).
Sexton's argument makes one more point worth mentioning. It would be
theoretically possible to provide much more information in the instruction, even in the
sentence challenged here. But the text of the sentence—and its prime placement in the
context of the entire instruction—effectively expresses that the most important thing
about the expert testimony is that it is not part of the evidence that the jury should
consider when it evaluates the charges against the defendant. Sexton is free to argue both
sides of this coin—that the instruction provides too much information, so the jury might
be confused by a broad-sounding phrase shorn of context; and that it provides too little
information, so the jury won't know what to do with it. But we recognize that a jury
15
instruction is a balance of clarity and depth, economy and precision, and we evaluate
claims of instructional error with that in mind.
B. Because Arizona's Robbery Statute Does Not Contain All the Elements of California's, the True Finding on the Arizona Prior Conviction Must Be Reversed and the Five-Year Serious Felony Enhancement Stricken.
Sexton was sentenced to a five-year term for the prior serious felony enhancement
related to conviction for robbery in Arizona. The prosecution relied on a 1997
Information from Maricopa County, Arizona, charging Sexton with one count of robbery,
as well as minutes from the trial court showing that he pleaded guilty to "robbery, a class
4 felony, nondangerous and nonrepetitive offense in violation of [Arizona Annotated
Revised Statute, code sections] 13–1901, [13–1902, 13–701, 13–702, and 13–801]
committed on April 8, 1997." For a prior felony conviction from another jurisdiction,
such as Arizona, to support a prior serious felony enhancement, the crime must "include[]
all the elements of any serious felony" in California. (§ 667, subd. (a)(1).) At the
bifurcated trial on the priors, the prosecution described Arizona's robbery statute as
"almost identical to the California statute," and the court noted that "it does contain all of
the elements that are contained in the California Penal Code section for robbery, violation
of Penal Code section 211."
Sexton argues that there are two ways in which Arizona's robbery statute fails to
contain all the elements of California's: (1) it does not require asportation, and (2) it does
not require that the person dispossessed of the property be the same person who
experienced the force or fear element. On the first point, the People maintain that an
opinion from the Court of Appeals of Arizona on which Sexton relies was wrongly
16
decided and inaccurately describes the elements of Arizona's robbery statute. On the
second, they challenge Sexton's claim that California's robbery statute does not require
the victim of the felonious taking be the same person subjected to the force or fear
element.
In California, robbery is "the felonious taking of personal property in the
possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will,
accomplished by means of force or fear." (§ 211.) The " 'taking' " element consists of
"(1) achieving possession of the property, known as 'caption,' and (2) carrying the
property away, or 'asportation.' " (People v. Gomez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 249, 254–255.)
Asportation is thus an element of robbery in California. (See People v. Lopez (2003)
31 Cal.4th 1051, 1054.)
In Arizona, the "taking" element of its robbery statute requires "obtaining
possession of or dominion over property, and does not require that the property be
moved." 4 (State v. Aro (Ct.App. 1997) 188 Ariz. 521, 524 (Aro).) In Aro, the court held
that despite the express absence of asportation of the stolen property in the facts before
it—the defendant removed an individual from a vehicle, took possession of the vehicle,
but did not move it—the defendant was guilty of robbery. (Id. at pp. 522–524.) The
People concede, as they must, that Aro stands for such a proposition, but still ask us to
4 "A person commits robbery if in the course of taking any property of another from his person or immediate presence and against his will, such person threatens or uses force against any person with intent either to coerce surrender of property or to prevent resistance to such person taking or retaining property." (Ariz. Rev. Stats., § 13-1902(A).)
17
second-guess that court's statutory interpretation analysis without pointing to any caselaw
from any Arizona court expressing a contrary opinion or otherwise questioning its
decision. We decline to do so.
The People further argue that this issue was conclusively resolved against Sexton
in People v. Mumm (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 812. But that case examined the intent
requirements of the California and Arizona robbery statutes, and the opinion did not
discuss asportation or Aro. (Id. at pp. 814–819; see, e.g., In re Chavez (2003) 30 Cal.4th
643, 656 [cases are not authority for propositions not considered and decided].)
Accordingly, in light of the clear guidance provided by Aro, supra, 188 Ariz. 521, we
direct that the enhancement be stricken. 5
C. The Consecutive Sentences for Counts 3 and 4 Violate the Dual Punishment Ban.
The dual punishment ban codified in section 654 provides that "[a]n act or
omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall be
punished under the provision that provides for the longest potential term of
imprisonment, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one
provision." The purpose of the ban is to improve the congruity between punishment and
culpability. (See People v. Sanders (2012) 55 Cal.4th 731, 742; People v. Jones (2012)
54 Cal.4th 350, 367.) Where there is separate punishment for multiple offenses arising
out of a single course of conduct, we review whether substantial evidence supports a trial
5 In light of our conclusion, we find it unnecessary to address Sexton's additional arguments with regard to the enhancement.
18
court's finding that the defendant formed a separate intent and objective for each crime.
(See People v. Capistrano (2014) 59 Cal.4th 830, 886.)
In closing arguments, the prosecutor presented both count 3 and count 4 as relating
to one action—Sexton's choking of Jane—which resulted in a visible injury to her neck. 6
The information charging Sexton, the trial court's nonspecific discussion of the counts,
and the verdict forms were all consistent with this line of argument. Sexton did not
previously challenge these two counts on section 654 grounds but raises the issue on
appeal, as he is entitled to do. (See People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295.)
In response, the People contend that substantial evidence supports an implied
finding by the trial court that the two counts related to divisible acts, claiming that count
4 corresponded to hair-pulling during the incident, rather than choking. They further
divide Sexton's intent, arguing that the purpose of the hair-pulling was to prevent her
6 Count 3, inflicting an injury on a spouse, required the jury find that appellant willfully inflicted injury upon his spouse, and the injury resulted in a traumatic condition. Count 4, assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury, required the jury find that appellant willfully committed an act likely to result in force that could produce great bodily injury, that when appellant acted he was aware that his act would likely result in the application of force, and that appellant had the ability to apply force likely to produce great bodily injury.
19
escape or protect the children, rather than to inflict physical pain, the objective of his
choking. 7
Jane described the conduct as follows:
"[Sexton] started yelling at me that 'I told you not to come home.' He—grabbed me by my throat, and he started to choke me. . . . [¶] . . . [¶]
"I was trying to pull his hands from my throat, and I managed to get his hands loose . . . . He was threatening me that I was going to die . . . and he was going to kill me." [¶] . . . [¶]
"The kids ran out of the room. They were scared. They ran into my daughter's bedroom. I tried to run after them. He grabbed me by my hair, pulled me back, put his left arm around my throat. At this point, my back was facing him, his left arm around my throat, and [he] continued to choke and continued to threaten that he was going to kill me."
Apart from the passage quoted above, the People point to no evidence in the
record that would support a finding that Sexton had a separate intent and objective for the
two counts at issue. The testimony demonstrates that during the entire course of conduct,
Sexton was threatening and choking Jane, except for a brief period when she managed to
get his hands loose, after which he pulled her back to him and "continued to choke and
continued to threaten" her.
7 Because we conclude substantial evidence would not support a finding of a separate intent and objective, we need not address whether the prosecutor could argue to the jury that both counts were based on choking Jane, yet contend on appeal that separate punishment was permissible because count 4 could be based on hair pulling. (See People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, 359 [record established that jury convicted defendant of three crimes based on a single act].) 20
The People offer two possible implied findings they believe are supported by
substantial evidence. Under either of these scenarios, they connect the choking to count
3, given that this count requires a traumatic condition to result, which would be satisfied
by the bruising on Jane's neck. (See People v. Beasley (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1078,
1085.) Count 4, then, would necessarily relate to the hair-pulling. According to the
People, two separate objectives for the hair-pulling are possible. Sexton might have
taken this action to prevent Jane "from reaching the safety of her children" or "to prevent
the children from witnessing the gravity of the acts."
First, the hair-pulling may or may not be a plausible basis for count 4 depending
on, among other elements, the level of harm likely to be produced by such an act.
Certainly the prosecutor never told the jury it was required to assess the likelihood that
the hair pulling would produce great bodily injury in order to convict on this count. But
even assuming it is, the People provide no cogent explanation for how their proposed
objectives for the hair pulling were independent of, and not merely incidental to, the
plainly-principal objective of harming Jane. (See People v. Beamon (1973) 8 Cal.3d 625,
639.)
If one's intent is to inflict harm on an individual who manages to free themself,
then a subsidiary goal of the infliction of harm is to regain control of the individual. In
such a case, however, the overarching objective throughout remains inflicting harm on
the victim, and any subsidiary objectives—such as regaining physical control or shielding
the harm from one's children—necessarily depend on the overarching objective and are
therefore not independent. As Jane testified, after Sexton regained control he "continued
21
to choke and continued to threaten." Even Jane's verb choices thus tend to show that his
harm-infliction objective was continuous. Substantial evidence therefore does not
support an implied finding that any of Sexton's actions during the physical altercation
were taken for a purpose other than his principal purpose, the infliction of physical and
emotional harm on Jane.
D. Remand for Reconsideration of the Prior Serious Felony Enhancement Under Senate Bill No. 1393
Sexton was sentenced to consecutive five-year terms for each of the two section
we agree with Sexton that the serious felony prior conviction enhancement related to the
allegation of robbery in Arizona be struck. We further agree with both parties that Senate
Bill No. 1393, signed into law in 2018, now provides the trial court with the discretion to
strike the second serious felony prior enhancement, which it may or may not choose to
exercise on remand. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1013, §§ 1–2.) As the People note, Senate Bill
No. 1393 applies retroactively to Sexton's conviction given the lack of finality. (See
People v. Garcia (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 961, 973–975; see also In re Estrada (1965) 63
Cal.2d 740, 743.)
22
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed in part with directions to strike the prior serious felony
enhancement relating to the Arizona robbery allegation, strike the true finding relating to
the Arizona robbery as a strike and a serious felony enhancement, reconsider the sentence
for the remaining prior serious felony enhancement in light of Senate Bill No. 1393, stay
the sentence on either count 3 or count 4, and resentence as to all counts. (See People v.
Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893.) In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
DATO, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
AARON, J.
23
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that CALCRIM No. 850 is not erroneous, but reversed the true finding on the defendant's Arizona prior robbery conviction because the Arizona statute lacks the asportation element required by California law. The court also ordered the trial court to stay the sentence on either count 3 or count 4 and to reconsider the prior serious felony enhancement in light of Senate Bill No. 1393.
Issues
Whether CALCRIM No. 850 is unconstitutionally vague or misleading regarding the use of expert testimony on intimate partner battering.
Whether an Arizona robbery conviction qualifies as a serious felony enhancement under California law despite lacking an asportation element.
Whether the trial court erred by failing to stay the sentence on either count 3 or count 4 under the statutory dual punishment ban.
Disposition. Affirmed in part; reversed in part with directions.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The text of the instruction does not allow for an interpretation of this sort, and the instruction is not otherwise ambiguous or vague.”
“For a prior felony conviction from another jurisdiction, such as Arizona, to support a prior serious felony enhancement, the crime must "include[] all the elements of any serious felony" in California.”