People v. Adams

Decision Date29 January 1988
Docket NumberNo. A035297,A035297
Citation243 Cal.Rptr. 580,198 Cal.App.3d 10
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Christopher ADAMS, Defendant and Appellant.

John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Steve White, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., John H. Sugiyama, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frances M. Dogan, Deputy Atty. Gen., Rene A. Chacon, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, for plaintiff and respondent.

Frank O. Bell, Jr., State Public Defender, John Plotz, Deputy State Public Defender, San Francisco, for defendant and appellant.

BENSON, Associate Justice.

Christopher Adams appeals from a judgment of conviction based upon a jury finding him guilty of one count of oral copulation, two counts of rape and one count of assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury. (Pen.Code, §§ 288a, subd. (c); 261, subd. (2); 245, subd. (a)(1).) 1 Appellant admitted two prior convictions. He was sentenced to an eight-year upper term for rape, two consecutive middle terms of two years each for the second rape and forcible oral copulation and a two-year enhancement for two prior convictions. An additional three-year term for assault was stayed. Appellant contends it was prejudicial error to exclude evidence that the victim had falsely accused others of rape, to permit cross-examination of appellant about his conversations with his attorney and about his attorney's legal strategy and to allow an expert to testify as to the victim's truthfulness at trial. We reverse the judgment.

Evidence produced at trial revealed that in the early morning hours of December 13, 1985, 17-year-old Naomi P. was riding the No. 15 Third Street San Francisco bus to her home from a concert she had attended in Oakland. Appellant, whom she did not know, was on the same bus. Naomi first noticed appellant when she pointed out Geneva Towers to him in response to his request for directions. When Naomi got off the bus at Schwerin Street, appellant did too.

Naomi testified appellant approached her and asked her if she smoked "weed" or "base". She replied "no" and crossed the street. Appellant grabbed her by the throat with one hand and held something sharp to her throat with the other hand. He pushed her against an automobile and told her she had killed his father, but she denied it. It was hard for her to talk because he was choking her. Appellant then dragged her along in a headlock. When she tried to get away, he threw her to the ground and threatened to kill her if she tried to flag someone down.

Appellant took Naomi to a nearby school yard and sat down with her. After some irrational talk, he asked her for her name, address and telephone number and for her mother's name. Frightened, she gave the truthful answers. Appellant led Naomi to the second landing of a stairwell. There, appellant stated his intention to have sex with her. He put his coat on the stairs, pulled down her pants, orally copulated her and had intercourse with her twice without her consent. Naomi then asked appellant for a comb. He said he did not have one but he helped her dress and patted her hair with his hand. He walked her back to the street and again asked for her telephone number. Then he said. "Well, I am going home, I am going to Sunnydale."

Naomi ran home to Geneva Towers where she told her mother and stepmother she had been raped. Her mother called the police. The police took her to the school yard and then to the hospital.

Six days later, Naomi saw appellant going into a bar. She called the police. The police took her and her stepmother to the bar but appellant was not there. She then pointed out another building she had seen him enter. The police went in that building and came out with appellant whom Naomi identified.

Naomi also testified that sometime before trial, her next door neighbor, Ernestine Pollard, gave Naomi a message from appellant suggesting that appellant would pay Naomi not to testify in court. Naomi informed the district attorney who sent an investigator to interview Ernestine Pollard.

Naomi denied she had told her neighbors inconsistent stories. She had not told them her assailant dragged her by her hair, or had intercourse with her on the grass, or that five men raped her, or that she was heavily intoxicated from drugs during the incident.

Naomi's stepmother testified that in the early morning hours of December 14, 1985, she was awakened and found Naomi in the bathroom rinsing her soiled panties while sobbing and shaking. Naomi told her stepmother she had been raped. Her stepmother also testified she was present on December 20, 1985, when Naomi identified appellant as her assailant Naomi was shaking and crying when she identified appellant to the police.

Obstetrician-gynecologist Bonnie Dattel testified she examined Naomi the morning the incident was reported. Dr. Dattel, a specialist in the field of emergency treatment of child and adolescent sexual abuse victims, found the presence of sperm in Naomi's vagina but did not find any bruising on Naomi's body. Dr. Dattel took an oral history from Naomi concerning the circumstances of the rape. Naomi seemed angry and responded to the questions in a straightforward fashion. Dr. Dattel testified it is not unusual for rape victims to behave in a frivolous or inappropriate fashion following sexual assault. In the doctor's opinion, Naomi's concern about her hair and her truthful responses to appellant's questions was not unusual behavior. The doctor also stated it was not unusual for discrepancies in detail to exist between police reports and medical report narratives of the same event. She also testified that the lack of bruising did not necessarily mean Naomi was not choked.

Appellant testified on his own behalf, admitting two prior felonies of grand theft and breaking into a warehouse. On December 13, 1985, appellant was on a bus traveling to a friend's house to spend the night. Earlier that night, he had been at the Waterloo Club and then the Tick-Tock with some friends. He was carrying about four grams of cocaine with him that night.

As the bus came to the corner of Schwerin and Visitation Streets, appellant asked if this was the Tower stop. The bus driver said yes and Naomi, who was walking to the front of the bus, said yes also. Appellant and Naomi both got off the bus. Naomi was walking in front of appellant when she turned suddenly and asked him if he had a match. He gave her one and she asked if he lived around there and he responded yes, sometimes. She asked him where he was coming from and he responded a party and made a gesture indicating he had sniffed cocaine. Naomi asked him if he had any cocaine and he told her yes, good cocaine. Naomi invited him to a friend's place. Appellant refused and asked what he would get out of the deal. Naomi offered appellant sex, suggesting they go over to the school. Appellant said that would work. Appellant denied grabbing or choking Naomi.

They sat on some stairs in the school yard and talked for a while. Appellant promised to give Naomi about half a gram of cocaine. Naomi said, "Let's get it over with."

Appellant laid his coat down on the stairs and Naomi took off her pants. With her consent, he orally copulated her and they had intercourse. Naomi then urinated. Both of them then moved away a bit and had sexual intercourse again.

When appellant got up, she asked him where the cocaine was. He told her to put herself together and he helped her pat down her hair. While they walked to the middle of the school yard, he said he would like to see her again and again asked for her telephone number which she gave him. As they walked out of the school yard and to within a block of the Geneva Towers where she lived, Naomi continued to ask about the cocaine. She appeared to appellant as if "she [were] desperate or something." Appellant said: "Bitch, you ain't got nothing coming, I am going." She said: "The next time I see you you are going to get yours, nigger" and trotted off.

Sixteen-year-old Tamara Atkins testified for the defense. Atkins, Naomi's neighbor, lived across the hall from Naomi with her two-year-old daughter, her aunt Ernestine Pollard and cousins Diedra Pretre and Rhonda Pollard. Atkins testified Naomi told her that she was high from smoking cocaine and drinking wine cooler the night she was raped. Naomi also told her two different versions of the rape. One version involved one assailant; another version, recounted one month after the incident, involved five male assailants. Atkins also testified that Naomi had a bad reputation in the community for being truthful.

Eleven-year-old Diedra Pretre testified Naomi told her she had been attacked by a man who grabbed her by the hair and dragged her to the grass where he raped her.

Ten-year-old Rhonda Pollard testified that Naomi told her the assailant was wearing a mask and grabbed her by the hair and pulled her to the schoolyard. Naomi also reported she felt a big knife behind her neck.

Ernestine Pollard testified that appellant telephoned her twice regarding the case. After the second call, Pollard approached Naomi and relayed to her that appellant had asked her to tell the truth. Pollard said appellant did not offer money for the favor. Pollard also testified that as Naomi went to get ready for the concert, she heard Naomi say she was going to use drugs the night of the concert. When Pollard saw Naomi shortly after the incident, Naomi appeared to Pollard to be "loaded." Pollard also testified Naomi had a bad reputation for truthfulness.

In rebuttal, Naomi again took the stand and denied she had told anyone she intended to get "loaded", that her assailant wore a mask, or that five men raped her.

I

During defense counsel's questioning of Tamara Atkins, the following colloquy took place: "Q. Do you know a man named Craig? [p] A. Yes, he is my cousin. [p] Q. Do you know if Naomi has ever...

To continue reading

Request your trial
45 cases
  • State v. Sullivan
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • May 12, 1998
    ...(Alaska App.), aff'd. in part, 711 P.2d 1183 (Alaska 1985); West v. State, 290 Ark. 329, 719 S.W.2d 684 (1986); People v. Adams, 198 Cal.App.3d 10, 243 Cal.Rptr. 580 (1988); Smith v. State, 259 Ga. 135, 377 S.E.2d 158 (1989); State v. Barber, 13 Kan.App.2d 224, 766 P.2d 1288 (1989); Cox v. ......
  • People v. Alvarez
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • December 5, 1996
    ...that is of no consequence. Defendant could surely have argued that it did. Indeed, on another point, he relied on People v. Adams (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 10, 243 Cal.Rptr. 580, in which the court held that article I, section 28, subdivision (d), of the California Constitution supersedes Evide......
  • People v. Miranda
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 11, 2011
    ...at p. 1457, 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 474, citing People v. Franklin (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 328, 335, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 376,People v. Adams (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 10, 18, 243 Cal.Rptr. 580.) Prior rape complaints do not reflect on credibility unless proven to be false. ( People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d......
  • People v. Miranda
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 18, 2011
    ...at p. 1457, 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 474, citing People v. Franklin (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 328, 335, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 376, People v. Adams (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 10, 18, 243 Cal.Rptr. 580.) Prior rape complaints do not reflect on credibility unless proven to be false. (People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Appendices
    • March 30, 2022
    ...v. Adams (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 559, §§5:74.11, 5:112.1, 9:38.3, 9:116.1, 11:122.3.4, 11:134, 11:211, 12:49.4 People v. Adams (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 10, §5:100.3 People v. Adams (Oct. 13, 2004) 04 C.D.O.S. 9204, §9:28.7 People v. Agnew (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, §7:73.5(b) People v. Aguil......
  • Discovery
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • March 30, 2022
    ...the credibility of a witness. ( People v. Wheeler (1992) 4 Cal.4th 284; People v. Harris (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1047; People v. Adams (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 10; People v. Taylor (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 622.) In Wheeler , the Supreme Court explained that the California Constitution, Article I, sectio......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT