Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Alfredo Valdivia was convicted of two counts of committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14, his niece D.O., who had come to live with him and his wife after being removed from her mother's care. D.O. testified that Valdivia sexually abused her multiple times, but she initially minimized the extent of the abuse when first disclosing it to police. At trial, the prosecution presented expert testimony from Dr. Mindy Mechanic regarding child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (CSAAS) and counterintuitive victim behaviors to explain why child victims may delay disclosure or minimize abuse.
Both the prosecution and defense submitted versions of CALCRIM No. 1193, the jury instruction addressing CSAAS evidence. Defense counsel objected to the prosecution's use of the phrase 'counterintuitive victim behaviors' in its proposed instruction, but did not object to the trial court's plan to instruct the jury with both versions. The jury convicted Valdivia on both counts and found true that he had substantial sexual conduct with a child under 14. At sentencing, the trial court acknowledged Valdivia's childhood trauma as a 'super-mitigator'; the Court of Appeal's review of the record demonstrated that the trial court found the low-term presumption under section 1170(b)(6) applied based on that trauma, but concluded that aggravating factors—including the victim's vulnerability and Valdivia's abuse of a position of trust—warranted a midterm sentence of six years on count 1 and a consecutive two years on count 2, for a total of eight years in state prison.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, rejecting Valdivia's two claims of error. First, the court held that Valdivia forfeited his challenge to the trial court's use of two versions of CALCRIM No. 1193 because defense counsel did not object to the court's plan to give both instructions. Even if the claim had been preserved, the court found no error because both instructions correctly stated the law and properly limited the jury's consideration of CSAAS evidence to evaluating the victim's credibility, not as proof of guilt. The court rejected the argument that giving two instructions impermissibly emphasized the evidence, noting that the jury was instructed not to draw conclusions from repeated instructions.
Second, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the midterm sentence without expressly invoking Penal Code section 1170(b)(6), which creates a presumption in favor of the lower term when certain mitigating factors, including childhood trauma, contributed to the offense. The appellate court's review showed the trial court was aware of the presumption and weighed the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, as evidenced by its detailed discussion of both before imposing sentence. The court emphasized that formal incantation of the statutory language is unnecessary where the record shows the court followed the statute's dictates.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant forfeits a challenge to the use of two versions of CALCRIM No. 1193 by failing to object to the trial court's plan to give both instructions, even if the defendant objected to specific language in the prosecution's proposed instruction.
- A trial court does not abuse its discretion by giving two versions of CALCRIM No. 1193 if both accurately instruct the jury on the limited purpose of CSAAS evidence and do not create a reasonable likelihood of confusion.
- A trial court imposing a midterm sentence under Penal Code section 1170(b)(6) need not expressly invoke the statute if the record affirmatively shows the court understood and applied the correct legal standard by weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
- Appellate courts presume that a trial court knows and applies the correct statutory and case law, and the burden is on the defendant to show the court misunderstood its sentencing discretion.
- CSAAS evidence is admissible only to rehabilitate a child victim's credibility when the defense suggests the child's behavior is inconsistent with the claimed abuse, not to prove the abuse occurred.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the principle that trial courts have considerable discretion in crafting jury instructions and sentencing decisions, and that appellate courts will not reverse absent a clear showing of error or abuse of discretion. It also clarifies that while Penal Code section 1170(b)(6) creates a presumption in favor of the lower term when certain mitigating factors are present, trial courts need not recite the statute verbatim as long as the record demonstrates they engaged in the required balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The case serves as a reminder to defense counsel of the importance of making timely objections to preserve claims for appeal.