People v. Matuzek CA6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 8, 2024H049792California14,426 words

Opinion

Opinion

Danner, J.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History The Santa Clara County District Attorney accused Matuzek of sexually assaulting Shirley Doe2 on or about July 8, 2020.3 At a preliminary hearing held three weeks after the alleged crime (on July 29–30), Shirley testified for the prosecution. The district attorney requested that Shirley’s preliminary hearing testimony be recorded on video and deemed a conditional examination (§ 1339). The district attorney asserted that Shirley “is 80 years old and is a dependent adult as defined in Penal Code section 1336[, subdivision] (c), having recently been diagnosed with dementia.” The trial court granted the requests. In July 2021, the district attorney filed a second amended information (information) charging Matuzek with four crimes: assault with intent to commit rape in the commission of a first degree burglary (§ 220, subd. (b); count 1); rape by force, duress, menace, or fear (§ 261, subd. (a)(2); count 2); and two counts of oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear (§ 287, subd. (c)(2)(A); counts 3 & 4). As to counts 3 and 4, the information alleged that Matuzek committed the charged offense during the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.