Griffin
filed his initial petition on August 23, 2017. (Doc. No. 1).
On October 24, 2017, Respondent filed an answer to the
petition and lodged the relevant record with the court. (Doc
Nos. 10, 12, 13). On June 25, 2018, Petitioner was granted a
stay of this case to exhaust his claims. (Doc. No. 19). On
March 30, 2020, after exhausting his claims, Petitioner filed
an amended petition, which contained timely claims of trial
court error and untimely claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel. (Doc. No. 30). On August 3, 2020, the Court issued
Findings and Recommendations to dismiss Petitioner's
untimely claims and to allow Petitioner to proceed with his
timely claims only. (Doc. No. 37). On April 14, 2021, the
District Court adopted these Findings and Recommendations,
dismissing Petitioner's untimely claims. (Doc. No. 39).
Accordingly, the undersigned addresses herein only
Petitioner's four timely claims of trial court error.
Specifically,
Petitioner claims that the trial court violated his
constitutional rights when it: (1) admitted evidence of
petitioner's prior misdemeanor conviction and images
found on his computer which (a) violated his due process
rights and denied him a fair trial; and (b) lightened the
prosecution's burden of proof; (2) gave an erroneous
instruction on child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome
(“CSAAS”); (3) erroneously excluded evidence
concerning a victim's prior, unrelated instances of
abuse; and (4) failed to give the jury a limiting instruction
related to the “fresh complaint” doctrine. (Doc.
No. 30 at 3). In passing, Petitioner claims the trial court
erred when it excluded prior criminal conduct of key
prosecution witnesses. (Doc. No. 30 at 3, 21). However,
Petitioner provides no information or argument in support of
this claim. Mere conclusions of violations of federal rights
without specifics do not state a basis for federal habeas
relief. Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005).
Moreover, the Court finds nothing in the record demonstrating
that Petitioner exhausted this claim before the state courts.
The undersigned accordingly does not analyze this passing
claim.
B.
Facts Based Upon The Record
In
2014, a Fresno County jury convicted Griffin of two counts of
committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 and
one count of sexual penetration of a child age 10 or younger.
People v. Griffin, No. F068898, 2016 Cal.App. Unpub.
LEXIS 7226, at *1 (Cal. 5th App. Mar. 24, 2017). Griffin was
sentenced to a total aggregate term of 131 years to life in
state prison. (Id.). The pertinent facts of the
underlying offenses, as summarized by the California Court of
Appeal as set forth below. A presumption of correctness
applies to these facts. See 28 U.S.C. §
2254(e)(1); Crittenden v. Chappell, 804 F.3d 998,
1010-11 (9th Cir. 2015).
Overview
Griffin met I. in January of 2011 when she was nine years
old. Griffin worked with I.'s father, and he became
friends with I.'s entire family. At the time, Griffin
lived in a trailer in Clovis. Griffin had a daughter, Rosie.
I. frequently visited Rosie at the trailer. Griffin, Rosie
and I. would watch television and play board games together.
I. continued to go over to Griffin's trailer even after
Griffin and Rosie had a falling out and Rosie no longer had
contact with her father. I. usually went with her best
friend, M., and sometimes their younger siblings would join
them, including I.'s sister, H.
In August of 2011, Griffin moved to a barn-like structure in
Fresno he was renovating for the property owner. I. and M
continued to visit him there, often spending the night, until
I.'s mother learned in mid-November 2011 that Griffin was
prohibited from having any contact with children. The basis
for the no-contact order was not disclosed, but it was
stipulated that Griffin had been convicted in 2006 of
misdemeanor sexual exploitation of a child (Pen. Code, §
311.3, subd. (a)) for videotaping his eight- and 12-year-old
nieces in the bathroom and then using the videotape for the
purpose of sexual stimulation.
Victims' Accounts
At trial, I., who was then 12 years old, testified that
Griffin first made her feel uncomfortable at the trailer when
she and M. were having a “foam fight” with
shaving cream. Griffin grabbed I., put his hand under her
shirt and rubbed her upper chest with shaving cream,
laughing. When I. told Griffin to stop, he went over to M.
and did the same thing to her.
On subsequent occasions, Griffin made I. uncomfortable by
wrapping his arms around her while she was lying in bed,
hugging her so tightly with his belly against her back that
she could hardly breathe. Griffin told I. that he loved her.
If I. did not respond in kind, Griffin would become mad and
“throw a fit.” I. told an interviewer at the
Multidisciplinary Interview Center (MDIC) that this type of
“snuggling” occurred at least five times at the
trailer. One time, I. looked at Griffin's cell phone and
saw a photograph of her younger sister, H., asleep in her
nightgown and underwear with her legs spread open. Griffin
grabbed the phone from I. and told her she was not allowed to
look at the photographs. When I. told Griffin she was going
to tell her father, Griffin said he would kill him if she
did. He also threatened to kill her dogs if they tried to
protect her father.
After Griffin moved to the barn, I. continued to visit him
for sleepovers. When she did, Griffin would place his hands
down her pants as she was falling asleep. I. told the MDIC
interviewer Griffin reached under her pajamas and rubbed her
thighs before touching her “privates.”
I. testified that on one occasion, as she was drifting off to
sleep on a couch, Griffin put his hands inside her underwear
and inserted a finger into her vagina. She felt his
fingernails digging into her and it hurt. I. told the MDIC
interviewer that the penetration lasted about two minutes
until she moved away and he stopped.
I. testified that Griffin threatened to “kidnap”
her because he said her parents did not treat her well. He
threatened to kill her father if he would not let Griffin
take her away with him. Griffin called I. “Princess
Number One” and M. “Princess Number Two.”
I. had another nickname as well, and Griffin had that
nickname tattooed on his arm. Griffin at times pleaded with
I. to come over to his house. He even called her parents to
try and cancel other plans she might have. Griffin bought I.
a laptop computer, and he gave I. and M. at least $20 each
time they visited, which totaled about $300.
M., who was 13 years old at the time of trial, testified that
she and I. were next-door neighbors and M.'s mother
became friends with Griffin through I.'s parents. After
Griffin moved to the barn, M. and I. spent almost every
weekend there. On one occasion, while M. was in a downstairs
room, Griffin touched her on the outside of her
“private part.” On another occasion, Griffin
kissed M. on the lips. Both made M. feel uncomfortable.
Griffin told M. he was going to have her name tattooed on his
body as well. M. testified that Griffin threatened to kidnap
her and kill her mother.
M. told the MDIC interviewer that she and I. spent a weekend
at the barn. On the first night, M. and I. were talking in
bed when Griffin came into the room and told them to
“snuggle” with him. Griffin got on the bed and
hugged both girls. He then placed his hand under M.'s
shirt and rubbed her breasts. He also kissed her on the jaw
and neck. The next night, some other girls were at the barn
as well, and they painted and had pizza. At bedtime, M. and
I. were lying together when Griffin came in and again said,
“Let's snuggle.” When they resisted, Griffin
said, “You have to snuggle with me or I'm gonna be
mad at you guys.” They continued to resist, and Griffin
eventually left the room. M. fell asleep, but awoke when she
felt Griffin place his hand in her pants and rub her between
the legs with a lot of pressure. He also rubbed her buttocks
and told her he loved her. At one point she felt
Griffin's hand “inside” her vagina. M. was
too frightened to tell Griffin to stop.
M. also told the MDIC interviewer that, while Griffin was
giving her a ride in his truck, he placed his hand down her
pants, and rubbed and inserted his fingers into her vagina.
He also touched her breasts a second time when she was in the
bathroom.
Disclosure of the Assaults
M. eventually told her older sister, Vanessa, that
“things were happening that weren't supposed to and
she didn't feel comfortable anymore going over” to
Griffin's. M. and I. told Vanessa that Griffin
“cuddled” and slept in the same bed as them, but
they did not disclose to her that he had touched their
private parts. They also told Vanessa they had seen photos on
Griffin's phone of H. in her underwear.
Vanessa told her mother, Victoria, what M. and I. had told
her. Victoria, in turn, told I.' mother,
...
