Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Daniel Peter Masterson appealed from a Los Angeles County Superior Court judgment convicting him of two counts of forcible rape under Penal Code section 261, subdivision (a)(2). The jury found true the allegation that he committed the offense against more than one person, and the trial court imposed consecutive terms of 15 years to life on each count, producing a total sentence of 30 years to life. The June 2021 information charged three counts involving J.B., N.T., and C.B. Masterson’s first trial in 2022 ended in a mistrial after the jury deadlocked on every count. At the 2023 retrial, the jury convicted him of the counts involving J.B. and N.T., deadlocked on the count involving C.B., and found the multiple-victim allegation true.
The prosecution presented testimony from the three named victims and from Kathleen J., who testified under Evidence Code section 1108 concerning an uncharged sexual offense. The victims described assaults occurring between 2000 and 2003 and testified about their connections to Scientology, their reports to Scientology officials, and the consequences they feared from contacting outside law enforcement. Experts addressed rape trauma, date-rape drugs, and Scientology practices. Masterson’s appeal raised eleven contentions, including a limitations defense, restrictions on impeachment and cross-examination, a detective’s contamination opinion, quashed subpoenas, denial of a further continuance, admission of Scientology evidence, limits on harassment rebuttal, pre-accusation delay, exclusion of evidence concerning J.B.’s possible intoxication, cumulative error, and conditional reversal of the second count.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. It first held that the prosecution was not barred by the ten-year limitations period for forcible rape against a single victim. Because the offenses involved multiple victims, Penal Code section 667.61 supplied an alternate penalty scheme carrying 15 years to life, and section 799 permitted prosecution at any time for an offense punishable by life imprisonment. Following People v. Perez, the court distinguished that alternate penalty from an enhancement adding time to a base term. It therefore rejected Masterson’s argument that section 805 required the life term to be disregarded when determining the limitations period, and distinguished People v. Brookfield as a narrow decision concerning different gang and firearm statutes.
The court also found no reversible error in the trial court’s evidentiary and discovery rulings. Excluding judicial notice and testimony about Code of Civil Procedure section 340.3 did not prevent the defense from arguing financial bias: the jury heard about the victims’ pending civil case and J.B.’s $400,000 settlement, while the proposed additional evidence depended on uncertain future amendments and recoveries. Detective Myape’s testimony concerned contamination rather than witness veracity, and any error was not prejudicial. The subpoena rulings properly applied Facebook’s balancing framework, with the court emphasizing earlier reports describing force, available impeachment material, overbreadth, and victim privacy. Denial of another continuance caused no demonstrated prejudice, and the Kathleen subpoena was untimely, overbroad, burdensome, and intrusive despite a plausible defense justification.
Scientology evidence was admitted to explain reporting delays, witness conduct, relationships, and the circumstances of statements—not to decide whether religious doctrine was true. The court held that ecclesiastical abstention did not apply to this criminal prosecution, the First Amendment imposed no barrier to relevant evidence, and the challenged judicial remarks showed no religious hostility when read in context. Limits on harassment rebuttal avoided a collateral mini-trial, and the jury was told there was no evidence Masterson participated in stalking or harassment. The court further found no prejudice from pre-accusation delay, no abuse in excluding speculative intoxication evidence, and no cumulative error. Because count one was affirmed, the conditional limitations challenge to count two also failed.
Key Takeaways
- Forcible rape against multiple victims was prosecutable at any time because section 667.61 supplied an alternate life-term penalty scheme rather than an enhancement disregarded under section 805.
- The defense retained substantial avenues for credibility impeachment through the civil lawsuit, settlement evidence, prior statements, and cross-examination despite the challenged evidentiary restrictions.
- Victim privacy, overbreadth, timing, and the availability of other impeachment material supported quashing the disputed communications subpoenas under the Facebook framework.
- Relevant Scientology evidence could explain conduct and delayed reporting without requiring the jury to determine the truth of religious beliefs or adjudicate an internal church dispute.
- The conditional challenge to count two disappeared when the court affirmed count one, and the judgment and consecutive life sentences remained intact.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the enhancement-versus-alternate-penalty distinction to the limitations analysis for multiple-victim forcible rape prosecutions. It treats section 667.61’s life term as defining punishment for the substantive offense, making section 799’s unlimited prosecution period applicable rather than the single-victim ten-year period.
The opinion also illustrates how appellate courts review trial management in a fact-intensive sexual-assault prosecution: speculative financial-bias evidence, private victim communications, religious-context evidence, collateral harassment disputes, and claims of delay are assessed through their particular records rather than categorical exclusion or admission rules. The unpublished opinion is not citable as precedent except as California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115 permits.