Housley

People v. Housley

Caution
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 682·6 Cal. App. 4th 947·8 Cal. Rptr. 2d 431·92 Daily Journal DAR 6909·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4355
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 20, 1992A050447California4,422 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kline, J.

Appellant Thomas Housley appeals following his conviction of two counts of rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)) and five counts of rape by a foreign object (Pen. Code, § 289, subd. (a).) He contends his convictions must be reversed or, at a minimum, his case remanded for resentencing, for the following reasons: (1) the court improperly allowed a psychologist to offer expert testimony regarding the typical conduct of molestation victims and then failed to properly limit the use of the evidence; (2) the court erred in permitting the use of hearsay evidence and evidence of past bad acts; (3) he received inadequate notice of the basis of the foreign object rape charges; (4) his right to a unanimous verdict was violated; (5) there was insufficient evidence of penetration to support the two rape charges; (6) his eighteen-year sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment; and (7) the court erred in imposing consecutive sentences, and failed to provide adequate reasons for its sentencing choices. We affirm, but remand for resentencing.

Statement of the Case

On June 16,1989, appellant was charged by complaint with two counts of rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)) and two…

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.