People v. Bradley CA3

BACKGROUND

Defendant was charged with six counts of lewd and lascivious conduct involving two children. (Pen. Code, § 288, subds. (a), (b)(1).)1 Before trial, the parties disagreed on the admissibility of Dr. Carmichael’s testimony on CSAAS. Defendant argued that the testimony was not “needed” in this case because “the jury is well aware that children may not disclose right away,” therefore negating any need for expert testimony on the subject. He also expressed concern that the CSAAS testimony would encourage jurors to find defendant guilty, even though “there’s a jury instruction [CALCRIM No. 1193] that talks about this, about how the jury may view Dr. Carmichael’s testimony.” The People countered that the CSAAS evidence was necessary in this case because the victims failed to disclose the molestation incidents despite having multiple opportunities to do so, which jurors may see as “inconsistent” behavior. The People also mentioned that CALCRIM No. 1193 “does a very good job of telling the jury just because the [victims] have these characteristics doesn’t supplant the duty of the jury of determining whether the facts are true.” Defense counsel responded that, even with the…