People v. Antunez CA2/6

Discussion Appellant’s first contention is without merit. It is premised upon his assertion that “there was no evidence of force, no evidence of physical injury.” The premise is false. Appellant was not charged with “forcible” child molestation pursuant to section 288, subdivision (b). This was a lewd act with a child

2 accomplished by an act of sexual intercourse. It is obvious that the injury suffered, i.e. pregnancy and miscarriage, was directly caused by appellant. This is bodily injury as a matter of law. (People v. Cross (2008) 45 Cal.4th 58, 66.) Appellant’s second contention is also without merit. There was no objection to the prosecutor’s argument. This is a waiver and the contention need not be addressed on the merits. (E.g., People v. Powell (2018) 6 Cal.5th 136, 174.) We also observe that the prosecutor is able to argue reasonable inferences from the record. There was no misconduct and no unfairness depriving the appellant of due process of law. Comment that there was no evidence of C.S.’s prior sexual history and that she had no such history is a fair inference from the evidence. Common sense dictates that a twelve-year-old child has little or no sexual history.…