Patino

People v. Patino

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 771·26 Cal. App. 4th 1737·32 Cal. Rptr. 2d 345·94 Daily Journal DAR 10485·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5775
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 26, 1994F018862California3,305 words

Opinion

Opinion

Cornell, J.

Introduction

Appellant Phillip Patino was convicted of two counts of forcefully committing lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14 in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (b). He was also convicted of two counts of false imprisonment in violation of Penal Code section 236, and one count of forcible oral copulation in violation of Penal Code section 288a, subdivision (c). Appellant also admitted the truth of three prior convictions pursuant to Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a), and three prior convictions pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). Appellant’s total sentence was 36 years.

We are asked to consider appellant’s contentions that the admission of expert testimony on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS) violated evidentiary procedural rules and appellant’s constitutional rights to confrontation and due process. For the reasons discussed hereafter, we will affirm the decision of the trial court.

Factual Background

At the time of trial, the victim, Dorena F., was 12 years old. She was 11 years old at the time of the incidents in question. She was living with her foster mother, Anne W.

Appellant lived…

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.