Opinion ID: 2509294
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 27

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence of Oral Copulation

Text: Defendant argues that his conviction of oral copulation was not supported by substantial evidence and the trial court erred when it denied his new trial motion on this ground. He asserts that the insufficiency of the evidence is demonstrated by the jury's failure to find true the oral copulation special circumstance. Defendant was charged with violation of section 288, subdivision (c), oral copulation of a person under 14 and more than 10 years younger than the perpetrator. `Oral copulation' is the act of copulating the mouth of one person with the sexual organ or anus of another person. [ķ] Any contact, however slight, between the mouth of one person and the sexual organ or anus of another person constitutes `oral copulation.' Penetration of the mouth, sexual organ or anus is not required. Proof of ejaculation is not required. [ķ] In order to prove this crime, each of the following elements must be proved: [ķ] 1. A person engaged in an act of oral copulation with an alleged victim; and [ķ] 2. The alleged victim was under the age of 14 and more than 10 years younger than the other participant. (CALJIC No. 10.46, brackets omitted.) Defendant does not dispute that the age differential element was proved but claims the evidence was insufficient to prove an act of oral copulation occurred. Serologist Moore's analysis of a tissue paper found in the wastebasket of defendant's bathroom revealed semen stains consistent with defendant and high amylase activity indicative of saliva consistent with Nicole. Moore testified that the stains were consistent with the product of oral copulation. Semen and saliva stains found on defendant's bed sheet, which Moore testified could also have originated from defendant and Nicole, in a pattern that indicated spewing, also supported Moore's conclusion. This evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction. ( People v. Scott (1978) 21 Cal.3d 284, 296, 145 Cal.Rptr. 876, 578 P.2d 123 [The uncorroborated testimony of a single witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction, unless the testimony is physically impossible or inherently improbable].) His citation of conflicting evidence is of no avail. ( People v. Maury, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 403, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 561, 68 P.3d 1 [on review of a sufficiency claim, the reviewing court resolve[s] neither credibility issues nor evidentiary conflicts; we look for substantial evidence].) Regarding defendant's claim of inconsistent verdicts, first, as the trial court noted, the verdicts are not necessarily inconsistent. The jury could have found that, while an act of oral copulation occurred, the murder was not committed during the commission of that act (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(F)), and could have convicted him of the substantive oral copulation count while finding the oral copulation special circumstances not to be true. In any event, any inconsistency in the verdicts does not require reversal of the oral copulation conviction. It is ... settled that an inherently inconsistent verdict is allowed to stand; if an acquittal of one count is factually irreconcilable with a conviction on another, or if a not true finding of an enhancement allegation is inconsistent with a conviction of a substantive offense, effect is given to both. ( People v. Santamaria (1994) 8 Cal.4th 903, 911, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 624, 884 P.2d 81.)