People v. Dominguez CA4/3

DISCUSSION

1. The Failure to Instruct With CALCRIM No. 1193 Defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to instruct in the language of CALCRIM No. 1193. Sergeant Jeff Dill qualified as an expert witness who testified to the child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. His only testimony on this issue was that, based on his extensive experience, there would be a delay in reporting child sexual abuse in the majority of cases. The remainder of his testimony was confined to the evidence obtained in connection with the child pornography count. CALCRIM No. 1193 cautions the jury that a witness’s “testimony about child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome is not evidence that the defendant committed any of the crimes charged against him.” The instruction was not requested and the issue is whether the court had a sua sponte duty to so instruct. Cases are split on this issue. People v. Housley (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 947 held the court has such a duty. There the victim had recanted the abuse occurred when testifying and a psychologist testified that such recantation was not uncommon particularly where the victim was subjected to intra-family abuse. The court held, “We thus conclude that…