People v. Van Winkle

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 865·75 Cal. App. 4th 133·89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 28·99 Daily Journal DAR 10053·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7964
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 24, 1999F030661California6,282 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vartabedian, J.

A jury convicted defendant Jeffrey Lowell Van Winkle of two counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child. On appeal, defendant contends that CALJIC Nos. 2.50.1 and 2.50.01 unconstitutionally lower the People’s burden of proving the current sexual offense beyond a reasonable doubt by permitting prior sexual offenses (proved by a preponderance of the evidence) to show that he actually committed the current crime. Specifically, defendant contends that (1) prior sexual offenses should not be used to prove predisposition or actions in conformity therewith, (2) prior sexual offenses should be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and (3) the jury instructions may mislead the jury into believing that a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient to convict him of the current offense. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

On February 25, 1998, the District Attorney of Mariposa County filed an amended information charging defendant with two counts of lewd and lascivious acts upon a child in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a). At trial, the People presented evidence of defendant’s current offense, as well as prior sexual misconduct.

Current…

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.