Rodriguez

People v. Rodriguez

Good Law
107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 579·89 Cal. App. 4th 546
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 12, 2001B142586California8,100 words

Opinion

Opinion

In 1989, our Legislature enacted Penal Code section 288.5 [1] observing in that section's legislative declaration of purpose that "there is an immediate need for additional statutory protection for the most vulnerable among our children, those of tender years, some of whom are being subjected to continuing sexual abuse by those commonly referred to as `resident child molesters.' These molesters reside with, or have recurring access to, a child and repeatedly molest the child over a prolonged period of time but the child, because of age or the frequency of the molestations, or both, often is unable to distinguish one incident from another ..., and as a consequence prosecutors are unable to ... overcome ... constitutional due process problems...." [2] Today, guided by that express legislative declaration, we decide instructional and sufficiency issues arising from language in section 288.5, subdivision (a), making that subdivision applicable to "[a]ny person who . .. has recurring access to the child... ." (Italics added.)

Jose Luis Rodriguez appeals from the judgment entered following his convictions by jury of two counts of continuous sexual abuse of a child…

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.