People v. Aluizo CA5

introduction of some of S.S.’s prior hearsay statements under section 1235; and (3) appellant was denied constitutionally effective assistance of counsel by trial counsel’s failure to object to prosecutorial misconduct during the prosecutor’s closing argument. We affirm.

FACTS

From August 2013 to May 2014, S.S. and her mother shared an apartment with appellant, his girlfriend, and her four-year-old son. S.S. was six years old when they moved in and turned seven in October 2013. About twice a week, mother left S.S. with appellant while she went to work. In May 2014, they moved out.2 Soon thereafter, mother learned for the first time that appellant had a prior history of inappropriate sexual incidents, including two prior convictions for indecent exposure. Mother asked S.S. several times whether anyone had touched her inappropriately when they lived with him, but S.S. “blew [her] off.”

All further undesignated statutory references are to the Evidence Code. The verdicts reflect the jury found the offenses in question to have occurred sometime between August 1, 2013, and May 31, 2014.

2. Five years later, in 2019, mother heard that S.S. had told a friend she had been…