People v. Melendez CA4/2

I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The People charged defendant with one count of making a criminal threat (Pen.

Code,1 § 422, subd. (a), count 1), four counts of forced oral copulation of a minor over

years of age (§ 287, subd. (c)(2)(C), counts 2, 6, 9 & 10), five counts of forcible rape of a

child over the age of 14 years (§ 261, subd. (a)(2), counts 3-5, 7 & 8), and alleged various

aggravating sentencing factors.

In a motion in limine, the People moved to admit expert testimony about CSAAS

because the named child victim did not immediately report her sexual abuse. The People

argued the proposed testimony was highly relevant and admissible to educate the jury

how child sexual abuse victims often delay disclosing their abuse, for the limited purpose

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 of assisting the jury in evaluating the victims’ testimony but not for the purpose of

“prov[ing] that the charged molestations in this case occurred.”

During the hearing on pretrial motions, the trial court asked the People for an offer

of proof about the expert’s testimony. The prosecutor stated the testimony “[w]ould just

be the general testimony”…