Court Opinion

ID: 9899139
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-15 23:03:36.358768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:59.249326
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/15/23 P. v. Willis CA4/2
                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION TWO

 THE PEOPLE,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E078414

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. INF2000876)

 HUGH OBRINE WILLIS,                                                     OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Dale R. Wells, Judge.

Affirmed.

         Steven A. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney

General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and

Felicity Senoski, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
       A jury convicted Hugh Obrine Willis of torture, child endangerment, and willful

infliction of corporal punishment on a child. (Pen. Code, §§ 206, 273a, subd. (a), 273d,

subd. (a); unlabeled statutory citations refer to the Penal Code.) The victim of the

offenses was Willis’s son, John Doe (John). The torture conviction required the jury to

find that Willis inflicted great bodily injury “with the intent to cause cruel or extreme

pain and suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or for any sadistic

purpose.” (§ 206.) Willis argues that the record does not contain substantial evidence

that he acted for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or for any sadistic

purpose. We disagree and affirm.

                                     BACKGROUND

       Willis has two sons, Adam Doe (Adam) and John. Lorri Willis (Lorri) is the

children’s mother and Willis’s wife.1 The family was living at a motel in June 2020.

Twelve-year-old John found a hypodermic needle and syringe in the parking lot and

stabbed 14-year-old Adam with the needle during a fight. To discipline John, Willis

struck John numerous times. Willis made John strip off his clothes, lie on the bed face

down, and stretch his hands above his head. Willis then hit John with a metal hanger and

a bungee cord on the child’s back, arms, buttocks, legs, and head. John could not recall

how many times Willis struck him, but it was more than 10. John was squirming, and

Willis told him to lie still. When the child did not stop squirming, Willis made Lorri hold

John’s legs. Willis also punched John in the eye, on the forehead, and on the chest, and

1      We refer to Lorri by her first name for the sake of clarity. No disrespect is
intended.

                                              2
he pressed his forearm against the back of John’s neck for several seconds. Willis took

his arm off John’s neck when John said that he could not breathe. After the beating,

Willis made John smoke a cigarette. John was bleeding from his ear, and he could not

hear from that ear for several hours afterward. He also had a “busted” lip, bruises on his

leg, buttocks, and back, and a black eye.

       At the time of those events, Willis weighed 190 pounds and was five feet 10

inches tall. John, who was small for his age, weighed 58 pounds and was four feet six

inches tall.

       Lorri witnessed the beating and confirmed that she held John’s legs for roughly

five minutes when Willis instructed her to do so. She complied because she did not feel

like she had a choice. She said that the beating was hard to watch, and she usually left

the room when Willis hit the children. John was crying and screaming and looked like he

was in pain. Willis “kept telling [John] to shut up and be quiet.” After the beating, John

was drooling, and blood was coming out of his mouth.

       Lorri said that Willis always had a reason for hitting John and Adam, but she

thought that the beatings were unnecessary on a couple of occasions. Lorri sometimes

heard Willis say, “‘If you like it, I love it,’” before hitting the children. Willis did not

appear happy or joyful during the beatings.

       Adam also witnessed parts of the beating. He went into the bathroom because he

was scared and did not want to see it, but he poked his head out of the bathroom four or

five times. He saw Willis hit John with the bungee cord “a lot,” maybe 20 to 30 times,

                                               3
and choke John. Willis also used a metal hanger to hit John. Adam heard John crying

and yelling, and he heard Lorri tell Willis to stop, but Willis refused and said that he was

disciplining his child. Willis looked angry.

       The day after Willis beat John, a neighbor at the motel called 911 and reported a

child crying throughout the night. A police officer responded to the call for a welfare

check and observed bruising all over John’s body. Willis told the officer that he was

responsible for “the whooping” and John’s injuries. Willis said that he struck John to

discipline him for the needle incident; he was “fearful” that if he did not beat the child,

John would not learn and would do the same thing again. He also said that he did not

strike John out of anger, and he never told the officer that he enjoyed striking the child.

Lorri told the officer that Willis struck John to discipline him for the needle incident and

because they had caught the child watching pornography.

       The officer referred John and Adam to the Riverside County Child Assessment

Team for forensic interviews. John’s statements to the forensic interviewer were largely

consistent with his trial testimony: He described how Willis made him strip, hit him with

a bungee cord, choked him, punched him in the face, and made Lorri hold his legs. John

described Willis as “pretty mean,” and he was scared that Willis might kill him someday

by hitting “something vital.” In Adam’s forensic interview, he likewise described how

Willis choked John, punched him in the face, and hit him with the bungee cord.

       John also underwent a forensic medical evaluation. John told the nurse

practitioner that his ears were tender and his buttocks were very sore. The nurse

                                               4
observed much bruising on John’s ears and dried blood in one of his ear canals. There

was a small abrasion on the child’s forehead, purple and red bruising on his eyelid and

above the eye, a red linear bruise on his face, and a broken blood vessel in one of his

eyes. He had a long linear pattern bruise on the front of one thigh and a small bruise in

the pubic area, but most of his injuries were on the back of his body. There were a few

red pattern bruises on his upper back, deep purple pattern bruises on his forearms, and

very distinct pattern bruises on the back of both thighs. The distinctive bruises were a

hook pattern consistent with a hanger. The other pattern bruises were long linear marks

consistent with a bungee cord. John had extensive bruising on his buttocks that did not

have a specific pattern. The “areas of bruising kind of just joined together” so that both

buttocks “were essentially just large areas of purple and red bruise.” It was difficult to

tell how many impacts caused the entirety of the bruising on his buttocks. John’s

bloodwork showed that there had been extensive injury to his muscles.

       John and Adam both described prior beatings at trial and during their forensic

interviews. When John was 11 years old, he got in trouble for using Lorri’s phone while

the rest of the family was sleeping. Willis told Lorri and Adam to take a walk, and he

made John take off his clothes and lie face down on the bed. Willis hit John with an

extension cord for four to five minutes, and when John would not stop squirming, Willis

taped him to a chair. Two days before the charged offense, Willis hit John with a metal

hanger roughly six times when the child picked up a pipe he found outside. John said

                                              5
that Willis typically looked mad or angry when he was hitting John, and he had never

seen Willis look happy or joyful.

       As for Adam, he once got in trouble for buying the wrong chips at the store.

Willis made Adam take his clothes off and hit him with an extension cord. Willis soaked

the extension cord in water first and told Adam that the water would make the cord hurt

more. Adam was screaming during the beating, so Willis put on his headphones and

played music loud enough for Adam to hear it. Willis then continued hitting Adam with

the cord. The child dropped to the floor after Willis hit him numerous times. Willis told

him to get up, but Adam refused, and Willis hit him in the head with the cord. On

another occasion, Adam got in trouble for drinking a soda at the store and putting it back

on the shelf. Willis punched Adam in the head, and after the child started crying, Willis

said that he would “‘give [Adam] something to cry about.’” He then hit Adam on the

legs several times with an extension cord.

       Adam said that during or before beatings, Willis often said, “‘If you like it, I love

it.’” Willis did not enjoy hitting Adam and John as far as Adam could tell, but he “really

wasn’t sure.” Willis would hit them until he tired, and the beatings could “go on

forever.” On one occasion, Willis took a break to smoke, and then he hit Adam more

afterward. Adam was scared that Willis would kill him and John or hurt them severely

someday.

       When the forensic interviewer asked Adam how he felt about all of the things he

told her, he replied: “Sad. I just . . . feel tortured.” She asked him to say more about that

                                              6
feeling, and he responded: “Just getting whooped. Like, his whooping us is fun for

him.” At trial, Adam explained that when he said the beatings were fun for Willis, he

meant that sometimes Willis would “just find a reason to whoop” them. Adam further

explained: “[H]e would just say we did stuff, and it wouldn’t even be true half the time.

So he would just whoop us over no reason.”

        The jury found Willis guilty of torture, child endangerment, and willful infliction

of corporal punishment on a child. The court sentenced him to prison for seven years to

life on the torture count and stayed his prison terms on the other counts.

                                       DISCUSSION

        Willis argues that the record does not contain substantial evidence that he

possessed the mental state required for his torture conviction. We disagree.

        In resolving a substantial evidence challenge, we review “the entire record in the

light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether it contains evidence that is

reasonable, credible, and of solid value, from which a rational trier of fact could find the

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Kipp (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1100,

1128.) We resolve all conflicts in the evidence and credibility questions in favor of the

verdict. (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357.) We do not reweigh the

evidence or reevaluate witness credibility. (People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198,

210.)

        “[T]orture has two elements: (1) the infliction of great bodily injury; and (2) the

specific intent to cause cruel or extreme pain and suffering for the purpose of revenge,

                                              7
extortion, persuasion, or for any sadistic purpose.” (People v. Massie (2006) 142

Cal.App.4th 365, 370-371 (Massie).) “Sadistic purpose encompasses the common

meaning, ‘“the infliction of pain on another person for the purpose of experiencing

pleasure.”’” (Id. at p. 371.)

       “The intent with which a person acts is rarely susceptible of direct proof and

usually must be inferred from facts and circumstances surrounding the offense.” (Massie,

supra, 142 Cal.App.4th at p. 371.) In addition, evidence of uncharged acts of child abuse

may be used to show the mental state required for the charged offenses. (Evid. Code,

§ 1101, subd. (b); People v. Evers (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 588, 598.)

       Willis argues that the record does not contain substantial evidence that he had a

sadistic purpose for inflicting pain on John. Willis asserts that he had “different

motive[s],” namely, he was angry with John for sticking Adam with the needle, he feared

for Adam’s safety, and he disapproved of John watching pornography. But even if the

evidence shows that Willis beat John to discipline him for some wrong, the jury could

reasonably infer from the evidence that Willis also took pleasure in abusing John. The

beating was severe and gratuitous. Willis made John strip off his clothes and struck the

child’s bare skin numerous times with two different implements, a metal hanger and a

bungee cord. He also punched John and choked him, and he made John’s mother hold

the child’s legs when the child was squirming in pain. The beating lasted roughly five

minutes, and John suffered bruises all over his body. His buttocks in particular were

completely covered in bruises.

                                              8
       The gratuitous nature of the beating was familiar to the children. For instance,

Adam described a beating Willis gave him for buying the wrong bag of chips. Willis also

made Adam strip off his clothes and hit the child with a wet extension cord numerous

times. Willis put on loud music when Adam screamed, and Willis continued to hit the

child. And when Adam fell to the ground, Willis told him to get up and continued to hit

him. Both children were afraid that Willis would kill them someday when he was

disciplining them for some actual or perceived wrong. Adam thought that the beatings

were fun for Willis because he seemed to find any reason to hit them, whether that reason

was based in fact or not. And both Adam and Lorri said that when Willis hit the children,

he told them, “‘If you like it, I love it.’” In light of all the foregoing evidence, the jurors

could reasonably conclude that Willis inflicted extreme pain on John for more than mere

discipline. They could reasonably infer that he experienced a sadistic pleasure in causing

John pain. (People v. Flores (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 855, 872 [jury could have reasonably

concluded that the defendants intended to cause extreme pain and suffering for the

purpose of persuasion when they disciplined the child victims by beating them and

depriving them of food]; Massie, supra, 142 Cal.App.4th at pp. 375-376 [“a reasonable

jury could have concluded that the gratuitous and repeated acts of extreme brutality”

against the victim “were committed for the sadistic purpose of providing defendant

pleasure”].)

       Willis argues that this case is like People v. Steger (1976) 16 Cal.3d 539 (Steger),

but Steger in inapposite. Steger involved a first degree murder conviction in which the

                                               9
prosecution relied on a torture murder theory. (Id. at pp. 542-543; see § 189, subd. (a)

[“All murder that is perpetrated by means of . . . torture . . . is murder of the first

degree”].) The defendant severely beat her three-year-old stepdaughter over the course

of weeks, eventually causing the child’s death from head injuries. (Steger, supra, at

p. 543.) The court held that torture murder required the willful, deliberate, and

premeditated “intent to inflict extreme and prolonged pain” (id. at p. 546), but there was

“not one shred of evidence to support a finding” that the defendant beat her stepdaughter

“with cold-blooded intent to inflict extreme and prolonged pain.” (Id. at p. 548.) The

court reasoned: “Rather, the evidence introduced by the People paints defendant as a

tormented woman, continually frustrated by her inability to control her stepchild’s

behavior. The beatings were a misguided, irrational and totally unjustifiable attempt at

discipline; but they were not in a criminal sense [willful], deliberate, or premeditated.”

(Ibid.) The court thus modified the judgment by reducing the defendant’s conviction to

second degree murder. (Id. at p. 553.)

       Steger does not change our conclusion. It concerned the sufficiency of the

evidence showing willfulness, premeditation, and deliberation, as well as intent to inflict

extreme pain. But the crime of torture does not require premeditation and deliberation.

(Massie, supra, 142 Cal.App.4th at p. 371; People v. Hale (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 94, 107

[“The intent required for torture as defined by section 206 is not identical to the intent for

murder by torture under section 189”].) And Willis does not contend that the evidence

here was insufficient to show that he intended to inflict extreme pain on John. He argues

                                               10
that the evidence was insufficient to show that he intended to inflict pain for the purpose

of a sadistic pleasure, and Steger said nothing about the sufficiency of the evidence to

show a sadistic purpose.

       For all of these reasons, substantial evidence shows that Willis acted with a

sadistic purpose when he beat John.

                                      DISPOSITION

       The judgment is affirmed.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                                MENETREZ
                                                                                           J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ
                        P. J.
MILLER
                           J.

                                            11