Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Matthew Negrete was charged in an amended information with committing lewd acts upon children under 14. Count 1 concerned O.Doe and alleged an offense between July 1 and July 31, 2021. Counts 2 through 4 concerned E.Doe and alleged offenses on or about January 1 through July 28, 2024. The prosecution also alleged that the offenses involved multiple victims under 14 within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.61. The jury convicted Negrete of counts 1 and 2 and found the multiple-victim and under-14 allegations true. It could not reach verdicts on counts 3 and 4, which were dismissed after a mistrial. Negrete received a sentence of 25 years to life.
The appeal presented two issues. First, Negrete argued that the trial court violated due process by refusing to modify CALCRIM No. 207 to limit the timeframe for E.Doe's allegations to February 2024, rather than the charged period from January through July 2024. The prosecution's proposed instruction told jurors that the crimes were alleged to have occurred on or about the specified dates and that the People need only prove they happened reasonably close to those days. Defense counsel sought the narrower February timeframe because E.Doe agreed on cross-examination that the abuse occurred then. The trial court retained the broader instruction, noting that other testimony and interviews referred to different dates and that the defense could argue inconsistencies in credibility.
Second, Negrete asked the Court of Appeal to independently review O.Doe's school records, which the trial court had examined in camera. Defense counsel had subpoenaed the records prior to trial and requested disclosure of any relevant or exculpatory information. On December 9, 2024, the trial court stated that it had reviewed the records in camera the prior Friday and found nothing requiring disclosure. The People did not object to appellate review, and the records were provided to the Court of Appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal rejected the instructional challenge by distinguishing People v. Barney. Under Barney and People v. Jennings, an 'on or about' instruction is improper when the prosecution's proof fixes the offense on a particular date to the exclusion of other dates and the defense relies on alibi or lack of opportunity. Here, the court concluded that the evidence did not establish such an exclusive timeframe. E.Doe initially told police the abuse may have begun in January 2024 and was uncertain whether it occurred before or after her February birthday. Although she later agreed on cross-examination that all the abuse occurred in February, the court considered the totality of the evidence rather than treating that answer as conclusively fixing the dates.
The court therefore held that the January-through-July instruction did not violate due process. The instruction did not relieve the prosecution of proving the offenses, and Negrete remained free to argue that the jury should credit only E.Doe's trial testimony and accept his lack-of-opportunity evidence. The court also observed that his alibi evidence addressed only three weekends in February and none of the remaining charged period. It further noted that child sexual abuse victims should not be required to describe offense timing with greater precision than victims of other crimes.
On the records issue, the court applied abuse-of-discretion review and independently examined the school records supplied by the trial court. The records included report cards, attendance information, evaluations, health records, and standardized tests. The court agreed that they contained no exculpatory or relevant information that would have assisted the defense. It affirmed the judgment in full.
Key Takeaways
- An 'on or about' instruction remains appropriate when the evidence does not fix an offense to a particular date to the exclusion of other dates.
- A witness's agreement on cross-examination to a narrower timeframe need not override other testimony and prior statements creating uncertainty about when the offenses occurred.
- The broader timeframe instruction did not prevent Negrete from presenting his credibility and lack-of-opportunity arguments to the jury.
- Appellate review of the in camera school-records ruling was for abuse of discretion, and the Court of Appeal independently examined the records before finding no withholding of relevant or exculpatory material.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in full, leaving the convictions and 25-years-to-life sentence intact.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the Barney and Jennings framework by focusing on whether the prosecution's evidence truly excludes other offense dates, rather than treating one portion of a witness's testimony as dispositive. It also emphasizes that uncertainty about timing can remain a jury question, with inconsistencies addressed through credibility arguments.
The opinion additionally illustrates the appellate safeguard available when a trial court declines to disclose records after an in camera review: the appellate court can examine the same records and assess whether the trial court abused its discretion. The opinion is not certified for publication and is subject to California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115.