1

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. WILLIAM FELIX BUTTE , JR. , Defendant and Appellant. A15 7 561
( Contr a Costa County Super. Ct. No. 0 5

- 172131

- 5 )

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), attempt ing a lewd act up on 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 exp ert testimony

. We affirm

. B ACKGROUND A.
I n August 2017, Darryl Holcombe, a Senior Inspector with the Contra Costa County District Attorney ’s Office, was investigating personal ads posted o n Craigslist. Holcombe discovered an ad , posted by “DaddyW69,”

en titled “Princess, where are you?” The text of the ad asked, “Are you tired of2

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 depict ing a woman having sex with a man she called “Daddy.”
P retend ing 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 sh e 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
wh en 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 w ould 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 in3

her online browsing history. Butte instructe d Lizzy to “look at it alone and play with [her] sweet pussy like a good naughty girl.” After Lizzy said she usually went to a Starbucks in a nearby mall after
school , Butte suggested that they meet there that afternoon and promised to buy her a Starbucks drink. When Lizzy explained she did not have a car or a ride, Butte assured her, “I have both.” To ease Lizzy’s qualms about being seen, Butte said, “Well we can bump into each other and I can get two drinks and then you just grab it like you ordered it.”
Butte told Lizzy he would teach her how to orally copulate him and asked if sh e wanted “Daddy to slide [his] think [ sic ] cock in [her] tight

pussy [?] ” When Lizzy asked if they would need protection, Butte said he had had a vasectomy and would be “gentle.” Immediately thereafter, t hey agreed
to meet at the Starbucks at 1:30 p.m., a nd Lizzy asked Butte to buy her a “carmel [ sic ] frap [

. ] ”
When police officers arrived at the Starbucks at the agreed time , Butte

w as s it t ing on a bench outside. Inside the Starbucks, Holcombe found two “carmel [ sic ] frap” drinks waiting at the counter. When Butte was arrested,

o fficers seized his phone and downloaded his KIK chat with Lizzy. Despite the existence of plenty of open parking s paces near the Starbucks , Butte’s car was parked some distance away, on the upper floor of the parking lot

. Butte admitted to Inspector Holcombe that he posted the Craigslist ad , asked all the sexual questions reflected in the downloaded messages, and told Lizzy that he wanted to sen d her links to pornographic videos. Butte was asked, “So what made you want to have sex with a 15

- year
- old girl?” He responded, “ [ C ] uriosity. Just s tupidity.” Butte also said, “I was just curious if it really existed.” When Inspector Holcombe asked for clarification, Butte4

sai d he was curious about whether “[t]h e se teenagers

. . . actually meet and stuff like that.”
B

. At trial, Butte testified that he did not intend to contact any minors when he posted his ad, but instead was interested in “role

- play or chatting online” with women pretend ing to be “little girls.” He did not believe Lizzy

was in fact 15 year s old because she would not send him a “live photo” or “live chat” with him. Butte had previously met with pe ople after being introduced
online . In one instance , the person claimed to be a woman but was in fact a man. On an other occasion, a person portray ed herself a s “a little girl” but
was a 25

- year
- old woman. Butte also said he had no intention of having sex with Lizzy. He asked Lizzy graphic questions only to determine her identity and not for sexual gratification. C

. The jury convicted Butte of meeting a minor for lewd purposes, attempting a lewd act upon a child, and sending harmful mater ial to a minor. At sentencing, t he trial court placed Butte on probation for five years , on condition that he serve one year in county jail , complete sex offender
treatment , and register as a sex offender ( Pen

. Code , § 290)

. D ISCUSSION A.
Butte argues the prosecutor committed misconduct during opening
statement that deprived him of a fair trial

. W e disagree.
1. The United States Constitution is violated when a prosecutor ’s conduct is so egregious that it infect s the trial with such unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process. ( People v. Flores (20 20 ) 9 Cal.5th5

371, 403 .) A prosecutor’s lesser misconduct will violate state law “ ‘ “ if it involves the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to persuade the

. . . jury. ” ’ ” ( Ibid .) We review the trial court’s determinations on prosecutorial
misconduct for abuse of discre tion. ( People v. Bennett (2009) 45 Cal.4th 577 , 595.) We will not reverse a judgment for p rosecutorial misconduct in an opening statement “ ‘ unless the misconduct was prejudicial or the conduct of the prosecutor so egregious as to deny the defendant a fa ir trial. ’ ” ( People v.
Wrest (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1088 , 1109.)
2. During opening statement, the prosecutor tol d the jury , “The defense [is] trying to say that [Butte] thought that he was talking to an adult. But the evidence in this case .

. . will prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was going there to meet with a 15 year old girl. .

. . [¶] In the body of evidence that you’re going to receive, a few things will be established beyond all possible doubt. The first of which is

. . . the defendant .

. . is a pedophile.” Defense counsel objected that the statement was argument ative but did not request an admonition . The trial court sustained the objection. Later that day, d efense counsel made an oral motion for mistrial,

arg uing the prosecutor’s “ pedophile ” comment was incurable misconduct
because the prosecutor knew it lacked evidentiary support . Defense counsel also argued the term (pedophile) refers to someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children, typically under the age of 13. The prosecutor opposed defense counsel’s motion , as s er t i ng “[a] pedophile is someone who
has a sexual attraction to children. I believe the evidence demo nstrates that incredibly clearly.”
The trial court denied Bu t t e ’s motion , explaining that the prosecutor’s use of the term “pedophile” in opening statement would not deny Butte a fair6

trial because the trial court instructed the jury that statements of counsel
were not evidence

. 3. Butte has not shown prejudicial misconduct. When a misconduct claim arises from the prosecutor ’ s comments before the jury, the initial question “ ‘ “ is whet her there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained

- of remarks in an objectionable fashion. ” ’ ” ( People v. Adams (2014) 60 Cal.4th 541, 568.)
T here are multiple reasonable understandings of the word “pedophile.” (See Johnson v. Department of Justice (2015) 60 Cal.4th 871, 883 [noting that pedophiles “by definition” target prepubescent minors] ; Merriam

- Webster Dict. Online (20 20 ) <https://www.mer riam

webster.com/dictionary/ pedophilia#medicalDictionary > [as of Jan . 1 9 , 20 2 1 ] [defining pedophilia as “sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object”] .) Here, t he prosecutor’s opening statement made clear this case involved
a law enforcement officer posing as a 15

- year
- old girl; there was no mention of prepubescent children. W e find it unlikely that the jury understood the word “pedophile,” in this context, to mean Butte was sexually attracted to prepubescent minors. (See People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731 , 772 [“ ‘ we

“ do not lightly infer ” that the jury drew the most damaging rather than the least damaging meaning from the prosecutor ’ s statements ’ ”].)
Butte admi tted , on cross
- examination, that he was aroused by a
gr aphic of a grown man having sex with his daughter

. He also posted an ad seeking a “naughty little girl” and sent graphically sexual texts , along with explicit invitations to engage in sexual activity, to someone he believed was a 15

- year
- old girl

. Given this record , we cannot agree with Butte that the7

prosecutor’s use of the word “pedophile” was wholly unsupported. We conclude there was no misconduct. In any event, the trial court repeatedly instructed the jur ors that the attorneys’ statements w ere not evidence and that the jury should decide the
case based on the evidence

. Given this cautionary instruction and the prosecution’s strong case against him , there is no reasonable probability that

a ny fleeting impropriety in the opening statement prejudiced Butte

. ( People v. Flores, supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 405 ; People v. Bennett, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 595 [“When a trial court sustains defense objections and admonishes the jury to disregard the comments, we assume the jury followed the admonition and that prejudice was therefore avoided ”] .)
B.
Butte also contends the trial court abused its discretion in exclud ing , under People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24 ( Kelly ) , the opinion testimony of his
online communications expert

. W e find no abuse of discretion. ( See Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747, 773 [standard of review]; People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1008 [ same ] .)
1. In order to be admissible, expert testimony must “ relate to a subject sufficiently beyond common experience as to assist the trier of fact and be based on matter that is reasonably relied upon by an expert in forming an opinion on the subject to which his or her testimony relates. ” ( People v. Olguin (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1371 ; accord, Evid. Code, § 801 .) 1

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Evidence Code.8

“When admission of expert testimony relating the use of novel scientific methods or techniques is at issue, the proponent of the evidence must demonstrate the technique’s reliability through testimony from an expert qualified to opine on the subject. The technique’s reliability, i n turn, depends on a showing that it has achieved general acceptance among practitioners in the relevant field. Finally, the proponent of the evidence must show any procedures necessary to ensure the technique’s validity were properly followed in the give n case. [Citation.] The purpose of these threshold requirements

— commonly referred to as the Kelly test

— is to protect against the risk of credulous juries attributing to evidence cloaked in scientific terminology an aura of infallibility.” ( People v. Pet erson (2020) 10 Cal.5th 409, 444.) General acceptance means “a consensus drawn from a typical

cross
- section of the relevant, qualified scientific community.” ( People v. Leahy (1994) 8 Cal.4th 587, 612.)
2. In support of Butte’s theory that he had no intent to engage in lewd
acts with a 15

- year
- old, t he defense offered the testimony of P rofessor Jeffrey Hancock. Defense counsel proposed that Hancock was an expert in “ online communications

. ” Before trial, t he prosecution moved t o exclude Hancock’s proposed opinion testimony on the ground s , among others, that it was speculative , the jury was equally qualified to evaluate the communications between Lizzy and Butte, and that the defense could not establish the foundational requirements under Kelly

. The trial court held a section 402 hearing

. Hancock testified he w ould opine that a reasonable person would suspect “Lizzy” was not 15 years old

. Hancock would not opine that a reasonable person would think Lizzy was9

over 18 years old. Defense counsel also indicated Hancock would opine that there was insufficient evidence Butte “groomed” Lizzy and that their text conversation, via KIK, was atypical for a “sting operation.” Hancock’ s opinions were based on “dozens of articles that have examined how people communicate online and the kinds of beliefs people hold when they are attracted to another person online.” Hancock had published two articles on the subject, based on his review of over 500 transcripts of
online comm unications between pedophiles and victims that result ed in
criminal convictions. Hancock’s opinion was also based on a computer

automated analysis of language used, which he said could indicate the age or gender of a person. In addition to the language u sed by the purported minor, in this particular case Hancock relied on other “characteristics” of the exchange , such as a comparison of Lizzy’s indicated school hours to the dismissal time of schools in the area ; the fact that schools in the area forbid
cel l phone u s e at school ; Lizzy’s use of some terms that were atypical for a 15

- year
- old girl ; and Butte’s repeated requests for live photos

. After reading two of Hancock’s published articles, which are not included in the appellate record, the trial court excluded Hancock’s testimony , agree ing with the People that Kelly ’s scientific reliability requirements were un satisfied

. The trial court also ruled that Hancock’s proffered opinion that a reasonable person texting with Lizzy would not believe Lizzy was 15 years old

— which Hancock arrived at on the basis of Lizzy’s school schedule, the district policy regarding use of cell phones at
school , and her use of p hrases like “ kicking it”

— was not the proper subject of expert testimony.10 3

. Butte does not challenge the trial court’s application of Kelly to this case or argue that Hancock’s opinion regarding Lizzy’s age would assist the jury (§ 801, subd. (a)) . He merely contends the trial court abdicated its gatekeeping role because defense counsel had no opportunity to present
evidence to show the reliability of Hancock’s technique . Butte is wrong. Here, the record clearly shows that a s ection 402 hearing was held to give Butte an opportunity to demonstrate the reliability of Hancock’s technique

. (See People v. Peterson , supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 444 ; Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 30 , italics omitted [“reliability of the method must be established, usually by expert testimony”].) At that hearing, t he trial court

a sked Hancock if he could cite a case or other authority showing general accept anc e in the community, but Hancock coul d not. The trial cour t also reviewed Hancock’s published articles and stat ed that , in his 2014 article , Hancock conceded h is technique was new and not scientifically validated.
The court further indicated that Hancock’s 2017 article did not claim that his technique had then been scientific ally accepte d

. By failing to provide us with these articles, Butte has not met his burden on appeal to demonstrate t he trial court abuse d its discretion in
conclud ing the evidence was inadmissible

. (See People v. Whalen ( 2013 ) 56 Cal

. 4th 1, 8 5 [ appellant ’ s failure to provide an adequate record requires
resolution against appellant ]; Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557,
564 [ judgment challenged on appeal is presumed to be correct and appellant
bears burden to affirmatively demonstrate error ].)
The record before us supports the trial court’s conclusion that Butte failed to meet his burden below to show Hancock’s techniques were reliable. (See People v. McWhorter (2009) 47 Cal.4th 318 , 365, 367 [ no abuse of11

discretion in excluding opinion testimony when Kelly foundational requirements not met because expert failed to identify computer software
used to enhance images and failed to satisfactorily explain process]; People v. Dellinger (1984) 163 Cal. App.3d 284, 293 [expert’s opinion testimony erroneously admitted after expert testified she did not know of prior experiments using same technique and “there was no corroborative testimony that this technique was accepted within the scientific community”]. )
D ISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.12 _______________________ BURNS, J.

We concur:

____________________________ SIMONS, ACTING P.J.

____________________________ NEEDHAM , J.

A157561