Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Carlos Sandoval lived in Los Angeles with his wife and her two young daughters, F.S. and K.S., whom he treated as his own children. The abuse of F.S. began when she was seven years old, starting with grooming behavior and escalating to fondling, oral copulation, and weekly sexual intercourse beginning when she was 12 or 13. K.S. witnessed Sandoval having intercourse with F.S. when she was 10, and a week later Sandoval began abusing her as well, with the abuse continuing until she was 14. Both victims testified that Sandoval threatened them and their family to keep them silent, and their mother dismissed their disclosures. F.S. tried to report the abuse in high school but was told by a lawyer it was 'too late' to do anything. In 2019, K.S. reported Sandoval to police and told police that F.S. may have been a victim as well, which led to the charges.
An amended information charged Sandoval with two counts of lewd or lascivious acts with a minor under 14, two counts of lewd behavior with a minor age 14 or 15, two counts of continuous sexual abuse, and one count of sexual intercourse with a minor age 10 or younger. A jury found him guilty on all charges and found true the allegation that he engaged in substantial sexual conduct with multiple victims. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Judge Ray G. Jurado, sentenced him to 85 years to life in prison, and he appealed.
The Court’s Holding
On appeal, Sandoval claimed instructional error, and the Court of Appeal found none. The court first declined to decide whether his failure to object below forfeited the claims, instead exercising its discretion to reach the merits to forestall a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. On the first claim, Sandoval argued the trial court should have instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 3516, which applies when a defendant is charged with continuous sexual abuse and specific sexual offenses as alternative charges for the same victim over the same time period. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument because the charges were not pleaded in the alternative: the pleading listed distinct, non-overlapping time frames for each count and each victim, so the court had no sua sponte duty to give the instruction. The court also noted that CALCRIM No. 207 correctly told the jury the crimes need only have occurred reasonably close to the alleged dates, and that the prosecutor's closing argument tied specific acts to specific counts without suggesting the same acts supported both a specific offense and continuous abuse.
Second, Sandoval challenged CALCRIM Nos. 1190 and 301, which instruct the jury that a sex offense conviction may be based on the uncorroborated testimony of a complaining witness and that the testimony of a single witness can prove any fact. The court held that these instructions correctly state the law under People v. Gammage and do not create a preferential credibility standard or dilute the reasonable-doubt standard. Sandoval conceded that Gammage rejected an identical challenge but argued it was wrongly decided; the court declined that invitation because it is bound by Supreme Court precedent. The judgment was affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- CALCRIM No. 3516 is required only when continuous sexual abuse and specific sexual offense charges are pleaded in the alternative for the same victim over the same time period.
- Charges covering different, non-overlapping time frames for each victim do not trigger a sua sponte duty to give the alternative-charge instruction.
- CALCRIM Nos. 1190 and 301 correctly state California law that a sex offense conviction may rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness.
- The Court of Appeal will not reconsider settled Supreme Court precedent such as People v. Gammage on the validity of standard witness testimony instructions.
- A prosecutor's closing argument that ties specific acts to specific counts can help show the jury was not confused about overlapping charges.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the distinction between alternative and cumulative charging in child sexual abuse cases. Prosecutors may charge continuous sexual abuse and specific acts involving the same victim as long as the time periods do not overlap, and trial courts have no duty to instruct with CALCRIM No. 3516 in such cases. The ruling also reaffirms the long-standing validity of the standard instructions on uncorroborated and single-witness testimony, rejecting a due process challenge that sought to undermine the Gammage precedent.