People v. Austin

Good Law
161 Cal. Rptr. 3d 883·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 728·219 Cal. App. 4th 731·2013 WL 4873993
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 12, 2013No. B238535California4,024 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Klein, J.

In this case of first impression in California, we hold the trial court did not err by ruling a prosecution expert was qualified to testify a sexual assault victim could have experienced an orgasm during nonconsensual oral copulation.

*733 C.L., the 14-year-old victim in this case, was defendant and appellant James Austin’s stepdaughter. While Austin’s wife was out of the country, Austin asked C.L. to sleep in his bed because he was lonely. Mutual massage eventually turned sexual as Austin began touching C.L.’s breasts, buttocks and vagina. He showed her pornographic videos. On four different occasions, he orally copulated her. C.L. testified she did not want Austin to be doing these things to her, but that she was afraid he would get angry if she refused. Austin had a bad temper, he kept guns in the house, and he warned C.L. if she revealed what he was doing she would be sent back to China, where she had been born. C.L. also testified that although she experienced orgasms when Austin orally copulated her, she did not enjoy it.

Austin was charged with a series of forcible and nonforcible sexual offenses, including oral copulation with a person under 16, forcible oral…

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.