People v. Pilola CA2/4

INTRODUCTION

Appellant and defendant George A. Pilola appeals from a judgment of conviction for sexual penetration by a foreign object and aggravated mayhem. He contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based on a post-trial declaration from the victim recanting her trial testimony that identified appellant as her attacker. The victim (who had been married to appellant for 14 years but who was separated from him at the time she was assaulted) was the sole witness to identify appellant as her attacker (among other things, the attacker broke into her house, tried to anally rape her with a bottle, and carved gang initials on her back). At trial, she was certain appellant was the attacker: although the attacker’s face was covered, she recognized him because of his voice, the way he moved, his breathing, and the manner in which he soothed their baby back to sleep when he woke up during the commission of the attack. She also saw appellant’s face when he was in the bathroom washing. In a declaration in support of a motion for new trial, the victim recanted her trial testimony identifying appellant as her attacker, and said she had falsely identified him…