Court Opinion

ID: 9381743
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-23 17:02:42.220702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:34.382040
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/23/23 P. v. Ortiz 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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                      E078563

 v.                                                                      (Super. Ct. No. INF1801137)

 GABRIEL ANTHONY ORTIZ,                                                  OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

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

Affirmed.

         Michael C. Sampson, 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, Steve Oetting and Daniel J.

Hilton, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
                                                I.

                                       INTRODUCTION

          Defendant and appellant Gabriel Ortiz appeals from the judgment entered

following jury convictions for two counts of felony sexual abuse of Jane Doe, a 20-year-

old woman who has physical, cognitive, and communicative disabilities. A jury

convicted defendant of raping a developmentally disabled person (Pen. Code, § 261,

subd. (a)(1); count 1) and oral copulation with a developmentally disabled person (Pen.

Code, § 287, subd. (g); count 2). The trial court sentenced defendant to six years in

prison.

          Defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting into evidence Doe’s

videotaped police and forensic interviews. We conclude that, regardless of whether there

was any abuse of discretion in admitting the two interview videos, any such error was

harmless. We therefore affirm the judgment.

                                                II.

                                             FACTS

          Doe suffers from physical disabilities, including cerebral palsy, seizure disorder,

asthma, ulcerative colitis, and cognitive disabilities which affected her speech, learning,

and comprehension. Doe cannot read or write very well and is unable to speak clearly.

Doe attended a special education high school program from age 14 until she was 20 years

old, during which she took special classes for students with disabilities. At the time of

trial, she was 24 years old. Doe worked three days a week as a cleaner at a thrift store

                                                2
that employed people with special needs. According to her mother (Mother), Doe would

never be able to live alone. Mother was very protective of Doe.

       A. Dr. Fraschetti’s testimony

       Doe’s pediatrician, Dr. Fraschetti, testified that he had treated Doe for 11 years,

from when she was nine or 10 years old, until March 2018, when she was 20 years old.

Dr. Fraschetti observed she was developmentally delayed and “had [a] lack of speech.”

Doe was only able to answer yes or no questions. Over the 11 years Dr. Fraschetti

treated Doe, her cognitive and speech abilities remained about the same. She still was

speech delayed. She was able to say a few more words but was not able to participate in

a conversation. At age 20, Doe was not able to care for herself, transport herself, or

support herself financially. Doe did not behave like a typical 20-year-old. She was

“[v]ery immature” and unable “to understand . . . what sexual intercourse [was].”

       B. Doe’s Trial Testimony

       In January 2018, Mother permitted Doe to spend three nights at the home of a

former high school girlfriend, M.R., and her mother. Doe was 20 years old at the time.

Doe testified in her limited capacity, with yes-no answers and brief responses, as in her

videotaped interviews, that defendant was her friend’s boyfriend and the father of M.R.’s

baby. On January 4, 2018, Doe and M.R. visited defendant at his apartment. Defendant

had sex with M.R. in Doe’s presence. Doe testified she did not know what M.R. and

defendant were doing. She did not know then what sex was.

                                              3
      After having sex with M.R., defendant took off Doe’s jeans and underwear in

M.R.’s presence. Doe testified she did not want defendant to do so. Defendant then put

his body part, a penis, in her mouth and in her body part where her pee came out.

Afterwards, he put his body part back in his shorts and dressed Doe.

      Doe testified she did not want defendant to put his penis in her mouth or vagina.

When defendant did this, she did not know what he was doing. Nothing like that had

happened to her before. Doe testified she was scared when it happened. She did not tell

defendant not to do it and did not push him away. M.R. did not say anything when it

happened.

      The next morning, January 5, 2018, Doe left defendant’s apartment and returned

to M.R.’s apartment. Doe did not have her phone with her at defendant’s apartment

because she had left it at M.R.’s apartment. When Doe returned to M.R.’s apartment, she

called Mother, who picked her up and took her to the hospital. Mother testified that when

she picked up Doe at M.R.’s, Doe was upset and appeared scared. She was not smiling

and was crying a bit. This was unlike her normal behavior. Normally, she was outgoing

and smiling.

      Doe testified she did not tell Mother what had happened until they got to the

hospital. At the hospital, she had a videotaped interview by Sheriff’s Deputy Potter

(police interview) and a physical examination. Nurse Diana Faugno, and sexual assault

counselor, Lisa Olson, were present during the videotaped police interview. Faugno

                                            4
noted that Mother, who was waiting outside the interview room, had said Doe did not

speak very well and “it’s . . . difficult to understand her.”

       C. Deputy Potter’s Testimony and Police Interview of Doe

       During the police interview of Doe, Potter asked Doe what happened. Doe

initially was silent, other than saying “Mm” or “Mm-hm” after numerous attempts by

Potter to urge Doe to say a few words about what had happened. Olson noted that Doe

was shaking and told her it was okay. Olson told Doe to take deep breaths, encouraged

her, and reassured her that she was safe there. Potter asked Doe, “Any word- any word

that comes to your mind.” “I see there’s probably quite a few words back there.

Sometimes, it’s hard to get those words out,” “It’s hard, isn’t it?,” “what word kinda sits

right on the top of your forehead that you wanna tell us? It could be more than one word,

but we’ll take one word.”

       Finally, after numerous responses of “Mm” to Potter’s inquiries, in response to

being asked, “Can you tell me the name of the person?,” Doe said, “I don’t know.”

When Potter and Olson asked Doe additional questions, Doe continued to respond, “Mm”

or “Mm-hm.” When asked if the perpetrator (defendant) was “white,” “black,” or

“brown,” Doe said, “Brown.” The interview proceeded in this fashion, with occasional

one word responses by Doe, interspersed with numerous responses of “Mm-hm” and

nods of the head. In response to Potter asking if defendant was Hispanic, Doe said,

“Hispanic.” When asked if he was “big” or “thin,” Doe said, “Thin.” When asked what

                                               5
color were his eyes, she said, “Brown.” When asked when the incident occurred in the

morning or afternoon, Doe said, “Afternoon.”

      Faugno asked Doe where the incident happened. Doe said, “His house.” Potter

asked if defendant stayed in the apartment complex where Doe lived and asked if she

knew his apartment number. Doe responded, “Mom does.” Faugno asked if the incident

happened on the floor on a mattress on the floor or on a rug. Doe said, “Rug.”

      Potter asked Doe if the incident happened the day before, in the morning,

afternoon, or night. Doe said, “Night.” When asked how she ended up at defendant’s

home, she said, “I don’t know.” Potter asked Doe if, while at his home, he said anything

to her before anything happened. She said, “No.” Potter asked if defendant touched her

on top of or underneath her clothing. Doe said, “Underneath my clothes.” Potter asked if

he touched her on top or under her underwear. Doe said, “Underneath my underwear.”

When asked if defendant tried to kiss her, she said, “No.” Doe said she did not remember

how she ended up on the ground. Potter asked Doe if defendant was standing, leaning

over, or down on his knee when taking off her pants. She said, “Both knees.” When

asked if defendant was straddling her on his knees or on one side of her, Doe said, “On

one side,” which was her “Left” side. When asked if defendant moved Doe’s legs and to

demonstrate how he did so, Doe said, “Open.”

      Potter asked Doe if defendant asked her to touch him or took her hand and made

her do so. She indicated he did, and when asked if it happened before or after he opened

her legs, Doe said, “Before.” When asked where defendant put her right hand, Doe said,

                                            6
“Here.” When asked if he made her touch him over or under his underwear, Doe said,

“Underneath the underwear.” Potter asked if his pants were already unbuttoned or were

buttoned. Doe said, “Unbuttoned.” When asked if defendant unbuttoned his pants or he

made Doe unbutton them, Doe said, “He unbuttoned.”

       Potter asked if defendant put her hand on his penis and made her do anything.

Doe said, “Put it in my mouth.” When asked if defendant was on his knees by her legs,

Doe said, “In between.” Potter asked Doe if when defendant made her open her legs, that

was before or after he put his penis in her mouth. She said, “It was after.” When asked

how defendant got his penis in her mouth, Doe said, “He walked.”

       Potter asked Doe what defendant did when he moved up near her head. She said,

“I don’t know.” Olson suggested Doe take a deep breath, and told her good job. Then

Doe said, “He pulled my hair.” Potter asked if she used one or both hands. Doe said,

“Just one.” When asked which hand, Doe said, “His right hand.”

       Potter asked Doe what happened next. Olson urged Doe to demonstrate with her

hand, adding that “it’s always okay to cry. This is a cry zone. Okay? It helps us get it

out. So, it’s okay to cry. Don’t try to hold that back. It helps us talk about it. Okay?

Can you show us with your finger? Okay. Show me what he did. It’s okay. Little by

little. Take a deep breath if you need to. Did it have something to do with your legs?

Okay.” Doe responded that “He put his [inaudible] in,” indicating his penis and

demonstrating he moved it in and out of her mouth. When asked how long defendant’s

                                             7
penis was in her mouth, she said, “Five minutes.” Potter asked Doe what happened next.

She said, “He opened my legs.”

       During the interview, Faugno explained to Potter that Doe was with a special

needs girlfriend at the time of the incident. The two young women had gone to visit the

girlfriend’s boyfriend, defendant, at defendant’s apartment. Defendant was the father of

the girlfriend’s baby. After the incident, the girlfriend’s mother called Mother and told

her what happened.

       Potter then resumed the interview, asking Doe what defendant did next after he

opened up her legs. Doe responded, “He put it inside.” Doe demonstrated with a stuffed

teddy bear. Potter asked her what happened when he put his penis inside her. Doe said,

“He moved it.” When asked how, Doe said, “Back and forth.” Potter asked Doe if it

went inside her or was outside against her. Doe said, “Inside me.” Potter asked Doe how

many times defendant moved his penis back and forth inside her. She said, “Two times.”

       Potter asked Doe what defendant did after that. She said, “I don’t know.” Doe

showed Potter with the stuffed bear but did not audibly describe his actions. Potter asked

Doe what he did when he closed her legs. Doe said, “Put my pants on,” and put her

clothes back on. Potter asked Doe what happened after her underwear and pants were

back on and defendant’s penis was back in his pants. Doe said, “Nothing.” Potter asked

if Doe then left or stayed there. She said, “Went friend’s house.”

       When Olson asked Doe if she had seen defendant before, Doe responded, “Uh-

huh.” She said, “Unh-unh” when asked if “yesterday” was the first time she had seen

                                             8
him. She also indicated that defendant had never done anything before to her like he had

just done.

       D. Denise Bowman’s testimony and Forensic Interview of Doe

       On January 9, 2018, forensic interviewer, Denise Bowman, conducted a

videotaped forensic interview of Doe (forensic interview). She noted that interviewing

developmentally delayed adults is very difficult. Therefore, depending on the severity of

the disability, a patrol officer, detective, or social worker may request a forensic

interviewer to conduct the interview. Bowman noted that Doe had difficulty with speech

and was not able “to narrate information freely.” Bowman therefore asked Doe yes-no

questions and multiple choice questions. Doe could say some comprehensible words and

also said some words Bowman could not understand. The video of Bowman

interviewing Doe was shown to the jury. Defense counsel did not object to the video at

that time. Afterwards, Bowman testified that, based on Doe’s interview responses, “it

sounded as though . . . there was a sexual encounter and that [Doe] didn’t want to. That

is what she said.”

       The video of Doe’s forensic interview reflects that Doe was more relaxed and

more responsive when asked questions about the charged crimes, but still reluctant to talk

about the incident. When Bowman asked Doe why she was there, what happened to her,

and who hurt her, Doe said, “I don’t know.” Bowman asked if Doe could write the name

of the person who hurt her. Doe said, “No.” When asked who took her to the hospital,

Doe said, “My mom.” Doe acknowledged she liked boys but said she did not “hang out”

                                              9
with them, other than a little bit. When asked where she met them or saw them, Doe said,

“I don’t know.” Bowman asked Doe the name of the name of her friend she hung out

with and where she met her. Doe said, “At school.”

       Bowman again asked Doe what happened to her and who brought her there. Doe

said, “My mom.” Bowman asked Doe if someone touched her on the body and who it

was. Doe said, “Gabriel.” Bowman noted that adults, such as she and Doe, might like

someone a little, “just for the night or whatever. Just for a little time and hang out and

maybe do some stuff? Um, did you wanna do that with Gabriel?” Doe replied, “No.”

Bowman asked Doe if she told him she wanted to do “stuff” with him. Doe again said,

“No.” Bowman asked, “You didn’t tell him? No? Um, what did he do to you?” Doe

said, “He touched me.”

       Bowman showed Doe a picture of a girl and a boy and asked her to circle where

defendant touched her. Doe complied, and said, “Here.” Bowman asked if he touched

her anywhere else, pointed to the picture and asked, “What do you call these?” Doe said,

“Boobs.” Bowman asked if defendant touched them and Doe said, “No.” Bowman

asked Doe what the place where pee comes out was called. Doe said, “Pee.” Bowman

asked Doe what defendant’s “part” that he peed with felt like. Doe said, “I don’t know.”

Bowman asked Doe where her clothes went. She said defendant “Took them off.” When

asked if defendant said anything to Doe, she said, “No.”

       Bowman asked where her girlfriend was. Doe said, “I don’t know.” And then

said she was at defendant’s house. Bowman asked who wanted to go there. Doe said her

                                             10
friend did. Bowman asked if defendant did “this to just you or to her” or to both, and

“[w]ho does he do this first to.” Doe said, “Her.” Bowman asked, “Her? So Gabriel

does her first and he puts his- his boy part in hers? And does she wanna do that or she

doesn’t wanna do it or what?” Doe responded, “Her wants to.” Bowman asked Doe,

“That was your first time. Okay. You’ve never done it before? No?” Doe said, “No.”

      Bowman asked Doe, “[H]ow did someone find out? Who did you tell?” Doe

responded, “Her mom.” Bowman asked Doe if her girlfriend said anything to defendant

“when he was doing this? Having sex with you?” Doe said, “No.” Bowman asked

where her girlfriend was when defendant “did this to you?” Doe said, “Here.” Bowman

asked what her girlfriend was doing when it happened. Doe said, “Looking.” Bowman

asked Doe, “[D]id you wanna have . . . his part right here in you? Did you wanna do

that?” Doe said, “No.” Bowman asked if defendant put his mouth anywhere on her

body. Doe said, “No.” Bowman asked Doe what it felt like when defendant put “his boy

part in here?” Doe said, “I don’t know.” Bowman asked Doe how many times he did it;

“Two times?” Doe replied, “Yeah.” When asked if he did both times the same day, Doe

said he did it “Two times, same day.”

      Bowman asked Doe if when he “opened her legs and put it in, was he making any

noise?” Doe said, “No.” Bowman asked if defendant did it lots of times inside her and

then took it out or moved it a lot. Doe said, “A little bit.” Bowman asked Doe which of

defendant’s body parts she touched and what part of her did she touch him with. Doe

responded, “My hand.” Bowman asked Doe: “Did you ever open your mouth and put it

                                            11
in? No. Did you ever stick hi – this – this is his boy part, right? Did you ever stick it in

your mouth? No. Just here? Okay. Um, so it just touched your lips?” Doe responded,

“Right.” Bowman then asked, “so you put your hand on his thing – this boy part, yeah?

And, um, and you went like this? Yes or no? Yes you did that? Okay. And then y- then

he put his boy part right here on your lips? Did that happen? Yes or no? Yes. And then

he put his part inside you? Or on – just here? Like right here – see here’s the top or did

he put it inside you?” Doe said, “Put it inside me.” Bowman said to Doe, “And then you

went back to your friend’s house and you told . . . .” Doe said, “Her mom.” Bowman

asked Doe where Doe’s mom then took her. Doe said, “Hospital.”

       Right after Bowman interviewed Doe, Sherriff’s Investigator Patrick showed Doe

six photographs and asked if any of the photographs were of defendant. Doe pointed to a

photograph. Patrick did not tell her whether she correctly identified defendant.

       E. Expert Testimony by Nurse Practitioner Kelly Deckard

       Expert witness, nurse practitioner Kelly Deckard testified that she performed a

forensic medical evaluation in which she reviewed the report of Doe’s forensic medical

examination performed by another nurse and photographs taken by the nurse on January

5, 2018. Deckard also reviewed the forensic interview videotape. Deckard testified that

the photographs showed redness, superficial abrasions, lacerations, and irritation in Doe’s

genital area. Deckard stated that the photographs indicated Doe had suffered some kind

of trauma to her hymnal tissue. Deckard further testified that she reviewed the forensic

findings of vaginal penetration and medical abnormalities, examination photographs, and

                                             12
history provided by Doe’s forensic interview. She concluded Doe’s injuries were

suspicious and consistent with the history of what happened as stated by Doe during her

forensic interview.

                                            III.

                                       ANALYSIS

       Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence

Doe’s police and forensic interviews, and that such evidentiary error was prejudicial.

Because we conclude there was no prejudicial error, we need not determine whether

defendant forfeited his objections to the interview evidence.

       A. Procedural Background Regarding Police and Forensic Interview Evidence

       Defendant filed pretrial motions in limine requesting exclusion of Doe’s police

and forensic interviews. Defendant argued that the interview videos were unnecessarily

and prejudicially cumulative of Doe’s and the interviewers’ trial testimony, and Doe’s

interview statements were unreliable as the product of leading and highly suggestive

questioning.

       During the pretrial hearing on the motions in limine, defendant argued the forensic

interview video did not qualify as a prior consistent statement and it consisted of leading

questions primarily requiring yes or no answers. The prosecutor argued the jury should

be given the opportunity to watch the video and determine whether Doe was a credible

witness and able to give consent to sex. The prosecutor noted that the questions were

yes-no questions because of Doe’s difficulty communicating clearly. The prosecutor

                                            13
added that the jury could see on the video whether Doe nodded her head affirmatively or

negatively when responding to questions. The prosecutor also argued the forensic

interview was a prior consistent statement. The court stated that, subject to reviewing the

forensic interview video, and unless defense counsel convinced the court otherwise, the

court was inclined to allow it.

       The court next considered admissibility of the police interview video. The

prosecutor explained that the interview occurred shortly after Mother took Doe to the

hospital and reported the sexual abuse to Mother. The prosecutor argued the police

interview was admissible to show Doe’s emotional state and her demeanor before she had

the forensic interview. The prosecutor further argued the police interview qualified as a

prior consistent statement because defendant was likely going to argue the forensic

interview was highly suggestive and unreliable. Defendant objected to the police

interview video on the ground Doe’s interview responses were tainted because she was

told before the police interview that she had been raped. Also, during the interview, the

nurse told Doe that defendant had committed a bad act against her.

       The court stated that in light of defendant’s potential trial argument that the

forensic interview contained “suggestive-ism,” it was important to establish what Doe

had said before the forensic interview. Therefore the court permitted the forensic

interview, as well as the police interview.

                                              14
       After Doe’s trial testimony, out of the presence of the jury, counsel and the court

again discussed playing the forensic interview for the jury. Although defendant did not

renew his pretrial objection to the interview video, later, during cross-examination of

Potter, defense counsel asked Potter if there could be potential problems with how the

sexual assault counselor, Olson, presented the evidence and facts during Doe’s police

interview. Defendant’s attorney, Joseph Cavanaugh, clarified: “Problems like how they

present the person because it seems that Ms. Olson was helping with a lot of questions. It

seems that that would be problematic.” The court sustained the prosecutor’s objection

that the statement was argumentative.

       Potter confirmed during her testimony that Olson was with Doe throughout the

police interview, called Doe “‘Sweetie,’” repeatedly stated to Doe that the interview was

very difficult, and repeatedly told Doe she was in a “safe place.” Olson told Doe she was

“being brave,” they “had to help get the bad guy.” Potter also confirmed that Olson

stated during the interview, “that’s terrifying in regards to the incident,” and repeatedly

stated when Doe answered questions, “‘You’re doing a good job, Sweetie.’” Cavanaugh

asked Potter additional questions suggesting that Olson was leading and influencing Doe

during the police interview.

       After Potter’s testimony, outside the presence of the jury, the court and parties

discussed the court’s proposal to instruct the jury not to rely on Olson’s statements and

conduct during the police interview as evidence. The prosecutor objected on the ground

such instruction would suggest Olson’s conduct was improper. The prosecutor added

                                             15
that, “By drawing attention to it you’re playing into defendant’s argument that this was

suggested or coached.” The court stated that it would give some thought as to how to

instruct the jury that the attorneys’ questions and questions asked in the video were not

evidence, and only Doe’s answers, including nodding her head, were evidence.

       At the end of the trial, during counsel and the court’s discussion of the jury

instructions, the court asked counsel if they wanted to modify CALCRIM No. 222, the

standard instruction on evidence, to address the interview video evidence in which there

were statements made by a non-witness during the interview videos. The prosecutor

stated that there was no need to modify the instruction. Counsel could argue that only

Doe’s statements in the interview videos were evidence, and jury could simply evaluate

the evidence. Defense counsel argued that, as he stated earlier, the jury should be

instructed that anything other than the witness’s statements is not evidence.

       The court suggested adding the sentence, “‘The same analysis applies to audio or

video evidence that was played to the jury.’” Defense counsel and the prosecutor said

they were fine with that addition to CALCRIM No. 222 to address those other than Doe

speaking during Doe’s police and forensic interviews. But the prosecutor added that the

addition would confuse the jury. The court agreed, declining to add the statement but

noting that defense could include it in his closing argument.

                                             16
       B. Applicable Law

       “Broadly speaking, an appellate court reviews any ruling by a trial court as to the

admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion.” (People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th

155, 201.) The People argue defendant forfeited his objections to the police and forensic

interview videos because he did not renew his pretrial motion in limine objections during

the trial. The People additionally argue that the two interview videos were properly

admitted into evidence as relevant evidence and qualified as consistent prior statements
                                                               1
under Evidence Code sections 791, subdivision (b) and 1236. In addition, the People

argue the interview videos were admissible under the rule of completeness codified in

section 356, as to the portions of the video interviews that may have been inadmissible.

       “To be admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule, a prior consistent statement

must be offered (1) after an inconsistent statement is admitted to attack the testifying

witness’s credibility, where the consistent statement was made before the inconsistent

statement, or (2) when there is an express or implied charge that the witness’s testimony

recently was fabricated or influenced by bias or improper motive, and the statement was

made prior to the fabrication, bias, or improper motive.” (People v. Riccardi (2012) 54

Cal.4th 758, 802, citing §§ 791, 1236.) We are presented with the latter situation

governed by subdivision (b) of section 791, concerning an express or implied charge that

Doe’s testimony and forensic interview statements were fabricated or influenced by bias

or improper motive.

       1
           Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the Evidence Code.

                                             17
       C. Discussion

       During the pretrial hearing on defendant’s motions in limine and during the trial,

defense counsel suggested that Doe’s statements in her police and forensic interviews

were not reliable, credible responses because they were the result of inappropriate

influence, suggestibility, and leading. Defense counsel also argued that Olson

inappropriately coached Doe by making remarks of endearment and other comments

which defense counsel argued were inappropriate and improperly influenced Doe’s

responses. Under such circumstances, it was “generally proper to permit rehabilitation by

a prior consistent statement.” (People v. Riccardi, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 803, quoting

People v. Manson (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 102, 143.)

       Doe’s interview videos were thus admissible as prior consistent statements to

refute defense counsel’s implied assertions that Doe’s testimony and interviews were

unreliable and Doe was not a credible witness. (See People v. Kopatz (2015) 61 Cal.4th

62, 86, citing People v. Collins (2010) 49 Cal.4th 175, 216 [prior consistent statements

admissible to rebut implied charge that witness’s testimony was based on information in

police report and coaching by others rather than on own recollection]; People v. Brents

(2012) 53 Cal.4th 599, 616 [broad charge that witness’s entire testimony was unreliable

warranted admission of prior consistent statement to rehabilitate witness]; People v.

Riccardi, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 803.)

                                            18
      As to the police interview, the trial court could have reasonably found that Doe’s

interview statements were reliable and credible responses, which were not unduly

influenced by suggestive or leading questions or comments made to her before the

interview. Her responses required questions that were very basic because, despite her

age, Doe had limited understanding of what had happened and difficulty communicating

verbally. The interviewers’ questions did not appear to be unduly suggestive or leading.

      The video of Deputy Potter’s interview of Doe the day after the sexual offenses

also demonstrated that Doe was extremely reluctant to speak about the incident, was

scared and emotionally distraught, and did not appear to be motivated in any way to say

anything other than what she believed had happened. Doe had a child-like demeanor and

lacked cognitive ability, which made it improbable that her responses were intentionally

untruthful based on any illicit motivation, even assuming she had been told before the

interview that defendant had sexually abused her.

      The subsequent forensic interview on January 9, 2018, four days after the police

interview, included some leading questions and Doe does not appear in the video to be as

emotionally distraught. Doe’s responses during the forensic interview were consistent

with her trial testimony and responses provided during the police interview.

      Although some of the questions during Doe’s forensic interview were leading, this

most likely was because of her cognitive and speech disabilities impeding her ability to

comprehend and respond to questions. Because the majority of the forensic interview

was admissible to refute defendant’s characterization of Doe’s testimony and interview

                                            19
statements as being unreliable, the trial court reasonably found that the entire interviews

were admissible under the rule of completeness, which allows admission of the entire

recordings if necessary to the understanding of the otherwise admissible portions. (§ 356;

People v. Riccardi, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 803.) Here, the entire interview assisted the

jury in evaluating Doe’s communication limitations, disabilities, and credibility as a

witness.

       Regardless of whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the videos

of the police and forensic interviews, any such evidentiary error was not prejudicial. The

video could have been shown to the jury without sound, thereby avoiding admission of

any hearsay and demonstrating Doe’s child-like demeanor and emotional state during the

forensic interview, supporting a finding Doe lacked the ability to consent to the sexual

offenses and motivation to lie. (§§ 225, 1200 [Editor’s Notes: “Evidence of a person’s

conduct out of court is not inadmissible under the hearsay rule expressed in [s]ection

1200 unless that conduct is clearly assertive in character. Nonassertive conduct is not

hearsay.”]; People v. Leon (2015) 61 Cal.4th 569, 603 [“Hearsay is defined as an out-of-

court ‘statement.’ . . . A statement is defined for this purpose as an ‘oral or written verbal

expression or . . . nonverbal conduct of a person’ intended as a substitute for oral or

written expression.”])

       In addition, it is reasonably probable that defendant would have been convicted of

the charged crimes even in the absence of the two interviews. The primary disputed

issues at trial were not whether defendant engaged in the sexual acts of sexual intercourse

                                             20
and oral copulation with Doe. The key issues were whether Doe had the capacity to

consent to those sexual acts, whether Doe consented, whether defendant knew Doe did

not have the capacity to consent, and whether he knew she did not consent. There was

overwhelming evidence, apart from the interview evidence, that Doe did not consent and

she was not capable of consenting, and defendant knew this.

       The evidence established that at the time of the charged offenses, Doe was a 20-

year-old adult women who behaved like and had the mental capacity of a child of about

10 or 11 years of age. She did not know what sexual intercourse was and she did not

know the names of the parts of the male and female genitalia. She had difficulty

communicating, including an inability to engage in conversation. Her limited speech was

difficult to understand, if not incomprehensible. Several witnesses, including Mother,

Doe’s pediatrician, Deputy Potter, expert nurse practitioner Decker, and forensic

interviewer, Bowman all testified that Doe’s behavior was child-like and she had

cognitive disabilities and very limited verbal skills.

       Doe’s trial testimony in 2022, also demonstrated her apparent limited ability to

communicate and child-like demeanor. Her testimony consisted primarily of responses

consisting of a few words, drawings, and nods of her head in the affirmative or negative.

In this manner, Doe testified that, before the charged offenses, she had never had a

boyfriend, had never had intercourse, did not understand what defendant was doing, was

scared, and did not want defendant to take off her clothes, put his penis in her mouth, or

put his penis in her vagina. The evidence of Doe’s child-like demeanor, lack of speech,

                                              21
and her cognitive disabilities demonstrated that she was unable to knowingly and

voluntarily consent to the charged sexual acts, and that defendant was aware Doe could

not and did not consent. Defendant did not testify or present any evidence refuting this.

       The interview evidence was cumulative to the enormity of other evidence of the

circumstances of the crimes and Doe’s limited capabilities, as defense counsel noted

when arguing defendant’s pretrial motion to exclude the two interview videos. Because

the videos were duplicative of Doe’s trial testimony and other witness testimony, and

thus cumulative, they did not add anything significant. Exclusion of the interview videos

therefore likely would not have changed the outcome of the trial. Allowing them, even if

error, thus was harmless. (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836; People v. Arias

(1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 157.)

                                           IV.

                                     DISPOSITION

       The judgment is affirmed.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                               CODRINGTON
                                                                                            J.
We concur:

RAMIREZ
                       P. J.

SLOUGH
                          J.

                                            22