People v. Reed CA3
Filed 12/8/20 P. v. Reed CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----
THE PEOPLE, C090507
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17FE017281)
v.
MONTE ANTONIO REED,
Defendant and Appellant.
A jury convicted defendant Monte Antonio Reed, a former high school teacher, of two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a 15 year old, E. (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (d)—counts one and two),1 three counts of oral copulation with E. (former § 288a, subd. (b)(2)—counts three through five), sexual penetration with a foreign object of E. (§ 289, subd. (i)—counts six and seven), and two counts of a lewd and lascivious act on a 14
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
1
or 15 year old, C. and J., respectively (§ 288, subd. (c)(1)—counts eight and nine). E., C., and J. had each been students in one of defendant’s classes. The court sentenced defendant to a total term of nine years in prison. On appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred by providing the jury with conflicting instructions regarding the use of testimony about uncharged acts and crimes, abused its discretion in setting his sentence, and erred by imposing certain fines and fees without holding a hearing to determine his ability to pay them. We will affirm the judgment. I. DISCUSSION A. Jury Instructions 1. Trial Court Proceedings In addition to the victims of the charged crimes, defendant’s former students A., B., and K. also testified. On appeal, defendant challenges the jury instructions regarding the use of their testimony. The jury was instructed based on CALCRIM No. 375 regarding the use of evidence of uncharged acts to prove lack of mistake or accident pursuant to Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b): “The People presented evidence of other acts by the defendant that were not charged in this case, specifically: “1. Asking A[.] to kiss him on the cheek, holding her hand, and/or putting his hand on her thigh while the students were watching a video in class. “2. Making comments about B[.]’s body, placing his hand on her waist and whispering, [“]Does this make you uncomfortable[?”], commenting on a photograph of her body, and/or telling her to [“]hit me up when you turn 18.[”] “3. Telling K[.] that she is his [“]forbidden fruit,[”] that she is something he wants that he cannot have, drawing smiley faces on her hand, and/or marking his initials on her body with a Sharpie.
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)