People v. Butte CA1/5
Filed 1/19/21 P. v. Butte CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE, A157561 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Contra Costa County v. Super. Ct. No. 05-172131-5) WILLIAM FELIX BUTTE, JR., Defendant and Appellant.
William Felix Butte appeals from an order of probation after a jury convicted him of meeting a minor for lewd purposes (Pen. Code, § 288.4, subd. (b); count one), attempting a lewd act upon a child (id., §§ 664, 288, subd. (c)(1); count two), and sending harmful matter to a minor (id., § 288.2, subd. (a)(1); count three). Butte argues the judgment must be reversed due to purported prosecutorial misconduct and the trial court’s exclusion of expert testimony. We affirm. BACKGROUND A. In August 2017, Darryl Holcombe, a Senior Inspector with the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office, was investigating personal ads posted on Craigslist. Holcombe discovered an ad, posted by “DaddyW69,” entitled “Princess, where are you?” The text of the ad asked, “Are you tired of
1
boys your age and curious to have a man who makes all the decisions[?]” It also said, “I am looking for a naughty little girl who likes to be a Princess” and “[a]ge doesn’t matter.” The ad implored, “[b]e serious about meeting up, I’m not into endless messages.” The ad also included a cartoon depicting a woman having sex with a man she called “Daddy.” Pretending to be a 15-year-old girl named “Lizzy,” Inspector Holcombe responded to the ad, using a messaging application known as KIK. Shortly after their conversation began, “DaddyW69”, who was later determined to be Butte, identified himself as a 48-year-old man. When Lizzy told Butte that she was 15 years old, Butte replied, “OMG, [love] it.” Inspector Holcombe sent Butte two photos from a female colleague, who was 14 years old when the photos were taken. Lizzy gave additional indications that she was a teenager, such as telling Butte that she was in math class at school. Lizzy also told Butte that she liked to play soccer and babysit, and she sent Butte a picture of a school locker. Butte also asked Lizzy whether she had ever had sex, to which she said “[n]o.” He then asked when she started masturbating. Throughout the conversation, Lizzy used abbreviations such as “idk” and “lol.” Undeterred, Butte asked Lizzy if she was a police officer (Lizzy responded simply, “A what?”), said he hoped they could meet in person, and asked if she could meet after school. Butte asked Lizzy several graphically sexual questions, such as whether she would like “Daddy to lick and finger [her] hot little pussy[?]” He also asked about Lizzy’s experience with pornography and instructed her on how to view “daddy-daughter” pornography without her mother seeing it in
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)