Court Opinion

ID: 9751425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 16:25:59.700248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:45.959052
License: Public Domain

GAUT, J.
I dissent. Here there was insufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that beyond a reasonable doubt Randy intended sexually to exploit Ryan in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a).
“Violation of section 288, subdivision (a) requires the specific intent of arousing the sexual desires of either the perpetrator or the victim. . . . Because the requisite specific intent is an element of the crime it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” (In re Jerry M. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 289, 299 [69 Cal.Rptr.2d 148].) “[T]he younger the minor the less likely his acts are with the specific intent of sexual arousal.” (Id., at p. 300.)
The majority opinion relies on the following evidence to support its conclusion that the trial court did not err in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Randy violated Penal Code section 288:
(1) Randy said to his mom, “I hope you don’t think that I sexually abused Ryan.”
(2) Randy requested to take showers with Ryan, and was told not to do so and not to touch Ryan’s private parts.
(3) Randy committed the offense in a clandestine manner.
(4) Randy changed his story and lied about the incident.
*409This evidence shows that Randy knew that what he did was wrong and that it was of a sexual nature. The evidence does not establish that he touched Ryan’s vagina “with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying” his own “lust, passions, or sexual desires.”
On the other hand, there was substantial evidence that Randy was a disturbed, angry, violent child who wanted attention and was hostile toward his stepsister, Ryan. Randy had previously tried to choke her. Four days before the incident, Mother had called Randy’s father and asked him to take Randy because he had been acting out and had said he wanted to leave. During the week before Mother called, Randy had been rebelling and causing a lot of problems. He also had been getting in trouble at school. The school had called Mother several times because he had been pushing students and causing other problems. Mother told Randy he would have to live with his father if he did not behave. Randy said he wanted to leave but wanted to live with his biological mother, not his father. Three days before the incident, Randy’s paternal grandmother was going to pick him up, but she did not show up.
There is no evidence that Randy had committed any sexual misconduct prior to the subject incident. Under Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a) it is not enough that a child perpetrator has committed a sexually suggestive act. Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a) expressly states that commission of the act must be sexually motivated as well. Where there is no evidence that a prepubescent child has been sexually aroused or is capable of sexual arousal, evidence that an inappropriate, sexually suggestive act has been committed is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement that the child perpetrator committed the act with intent to arouse his or her own sexual desires.
As to the incident occurring clandestinely, the record does not indicate whether the bathroom door was shut or locked when Randy committed the offense. The record indicates that the first time Mother discovered Ryan and Randy in the bathroom the door was locked, but there is no evidence as to whether, when Randy committed the offense approximately 10 minutes later, Randy shut the bathroom door and locked it. The evidence does raise the inference that Randy committed the act in blatant defiance of his mother’s order not to take a shower with Ryan. It could be inferred that Randy knew Mother would discover he had defied her order, particularly after she had just discovered he had taken a shower with Ryan. These circumstances indicate an act of defiance and an absence of clandestine activity or, at most, very weak evidence of clandestine activity, with no evidence of sexual motivation or gratification.
The majority opinion states that Randy’s age should not “trump” other factors. While age should not be the sole determinative factor, it is a very *410significant factor here since Randy was 11 years old, whereas the age of puberty for boys is 14, and there is no evidence that Randy was capable of, or motivated by, sexual gratification or lust. As noted in the majority opinion, “the basic purpose of section 288 is ‘to provide children with “special protection” from sexual exploitation.’ ” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 405, quoting People v. Martinez (1995) 11 Cal.4th 434, 443-444 [45 Cal.Rptr.2d 905, 903 P.2d 1037].) Here, the record does not provide any evidence that Randy was sexually exploiting Ryan. Rather, the record shows that Randy was a disturbed, hostile “11-year-old whose conduct was more consistent with an intent to annoy and obtain attention than with sexual arousal.” (In re Jerry M., supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at p. 300.) As the court found in Jerry M., under such circumstances, Randy “was perhaps guilty of battery ([Pen. Code,] § 242), but the record does not support a true finding beyond a reasonable doubt of conduct intended sexually to exploit a child—the ‘gist’ of section 288, subdivision (a).” (Ibid.
Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied February 23, 2000. Kennard, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.