People v. Weems CA5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 26, 2023F084327California2,109 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS

Jane Doe lived with her father, J.P., from January 2020 until around late May 2020. Jane Doe was born in the second week of May 2014, so she was five years old during most of this timeframe. J.P.’s girlfriend and her brother, defendant, also lived at the home. Defendant goes by the nickname Peanut. Defendant showed Jane Doe a “bad” Little Mermaid movie on his phone. The mermaid “got on her dad,” they did “the bend-down thing,” and the dad put his private parts inside of Ariel.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 2 The parties indicate that the term on count 6 was also stayed pursuant to section 654 but that was not reflected in the court’s pronouncement of sentence nor the accompanying minute order.

2. To Jane Doe, “tutu” means penis. During a forensic interview, Jane Doe said defendant had also told her to lick his “tutu.”3 Jane Doe licked his “tutu” with her mouth. She eventually stopped licking his “tutu,” because it was “nasty.” However, when asked about this incident at trial, Jane Doe testified she did not know whether defendant had asked her to lick his “tutu.” On the night of May 14, 2020, another incident occurred…

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.