People v. Daniels CA4/1

I. INTRODUCTION

A jury convicted Mark Jamison Daniels of 12 lewd acts against his daughter. Challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, Daniels claims the sexual intent and victim age requirements of the offenses were not established. Daniels further contends that by instructing the jury that the offenses allegedly occurred “on or about” specific dates (CALCRIM No. 207), the trial court eliminated the offenses’ age elements and permitted the jury to convict Daniels twice for the same acts. Finding sufficient evidence for each count and no instructional error, we affirm the judgment.

II. BACKGROUND

During her childhood, E. lived with her father, Daniels, her mother (Mother), and her younger brother (Brother) and sister. When E. was 11 or 12 years old, Daniels began touching E.’s buttocks. Daniels then started touching E.’s breasts when she was 13 or 14. Both acts continued frequently through the time E. was 18. E. eventually reported Daniels to the police when she was 19, leading to Daniels’s arrest. The San Diego County District Attorney’s Office charged

Daniels with four counts of lewd acts on a child under 14 (Pen. Code,1 § 288, subd. (a)), and eight counts of…