People v. Forhan
| Decision Date | 14 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | E073969 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CARL TIMOTHY FORHAN, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County, No. RIF1702723 Bernard Schwartz, Judge. Affirmed.
Exum Law Offices and Darryl L. Exum for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra and Rob Bonta, Attorneys General, Lance E. Winters Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Anthony Da Silva, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Carl Timothy Forhan was convicted by a jury of one count of sodomy of a person under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, [1] § 269, subd. (a)(3), count 1); one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child under the age of 14 (§ 269, subd. (a)(4), count 2); two counts of oral copulation or sexual penetration of a person 10 years of age or younger (§ 288.7, subds. (a), (b), counts 3, 4); and committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a child under the age of 14 years (§ 288, subd. (a), count 5) arising out of a 2009 incident involving his nephew, A.B.
Additionally, defendant was convicted by a jury of 25 counts of committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a child under the age of 14 years by use of force, violence, duress, menace, and fear (§ 288, subd. (b)(1), counts 6-30) arising out of incidents from 1991 through 1993 involving defendant's younger brother, G.F. Additionally, the jury found true special circumstance allegations that defendant's commission of counts 6 through 30 involved substantial sexual conduct with a child under 14 years of age (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)); defendant committed a qualifying offense against more than one victim (§ 667.61, subd. (e)(4)); and the statute of limitations was tolled (§ 803, subd. (f)(1)).
On appeal, defendant argues (1) the trial court erred in denying a pretrial motion pursuant to section 995 seeking to set aside the information on the ground that all charges were barred by the applicable statute of limitations; (2) the failure of the prosecutor to require a designated expert on child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (CSAAS) to prepare a report for the purpose of producing it in pretrial discovery constituted a violation of defendant's due process rights or, alternatively, a violation of his statutory rights to discovery under section 1054.1; (3) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting expert testimony on the subject of CSAAS; (4) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting purported hearsay testimony by a witness; and (5) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial. We find no merit in defendant's arguments, and we affirm the judgment.
In January 2015, A.B. disclosed to a mandated reporter that defendant had shown him pornography and had inappropriately touched him during an incident in 2009 when A.B. was only 10 years of age. Following A.B.'s disclosure, defendant's brother, G.F., also came forward and accused defendant of various acts of molestation when G.F. was a teenager. In response, the People filed a felony complaint against defendant on March 6, 2015, followed by an information in December 2015, and an amended information in May 2016.
In July 2017, A.B. alleged for the first time that he was also sodomized during the 2009 incident involving defendant. As a result, on August 3, 2017, the date originally set for trial, the People dismissed and refiled defendant's case under a new case number, with additional allegations and charges.
Following a second preliminary hearing, the People filed an information in October 2017. With respect to the allegations made by A.B., defendant was charged with sexual intercourse or sodomy of a person under the age of 14 years (§ 269, subd. (a)(3), count 1); aggravated sexual assault of a child under the age of 14 years (§ 269, subd. (a)(4), count 2); two counts of oral copulation or sexual penetration of a person 10 years of age or younger (§ 288.7, subds. (a), (b), counts 3, 4); and committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a child under the age of 14 years (§ 288, subd. (a), count 5). With respect to the allegations made by G.F., defendant was charged with 25 counts of committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a child under the age of 14 by use of force, violence, duress, menace, and fear. (§ 288, subd. (b)(1), counts 6-30.)
The information further alleged that in the commission of counts 6 through 30, defendant engaged in substantial sexual conduct with a child under 14 years of age (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)); he committed a qualifying offense against more than one victim (§ 667.61, subd. (e)(4)); and the statute of limitations was tolled (§ 803, subd. (f)(1)).
Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion seeking to set aside the information pursuant to section 995 on the ground that prosecution on all of the charges was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Specifically, defendant argued that the applicable statute of limitations for all of the charged offenses was six years under section 800, and the testimony presented during his preliminary hearing was not sufficient to show the application of any extension of time for prosecution. Alternatively, defendant requested the trial court exercise its discretion to hold an evidentiary hearing on the sufficiency of the evidence on the statute of limitations issue. The trial court denied the motion without conducting any additional evidentiary hearing.
A.B. was 20 years old at the time of trial and is defendant's nephew.[2] A.B. testified that in 2009, while he and his brother were visiting defendant's home, defendant took A.B. to a shed in the backyard, showed A.B. pornography, and performed various sexual acts on A.B. Eventually, defendant laid A.B. across a stool, duct taped A.B.'s hands to the legs of the stool, inserted his penis into A.B.'s anus, and proceeded to engage in intercourse with A.B.
In January 2015, A.B. disclosed to his high school girlfriend that he had been abused by defendant. He then spoke with his girlfriend's father, N.W., [3] about the 2009 incident. However, A.B. did not tell N.W. the full extent of what defendant had done out of fear and embarrassment.
In July 2017, A.B. composed an electronic note on his mobile phone, detailing the 2009 incident with defendant. He initially did so as a coping mechanism. However, after mistakenly forming the belief that his note had been uploaded to his family's electronic storage and read by his mother, A.B. shared the note with his uncle, G.F. This was the first time A.B. ever disclosed the full extent of what occurred during the 2009 incident. Following this disclosure, G.F. and A.B.'s mother, C.B., accompanied A.B. to a police station where A.B. spoke with an investigator.
On cross-examination, defense counsel questioned A.B. regarding A.B.'s failure to disclose the allegations against defendant in the years following the incident; seemingly inconsistent statements made by A.B. to police in prior interviews; and subsequent events where A.B. appeared to interact normally with defendant.
G.F. was 39 years old at the time of trial, and he is defendant's younger brother. Defendant is approximately four and one-half years older than G.F. G.F. testified that, starting when he was approximately 10 or 11 years of age, defendant began forcing G.F. to masturbate defendant. This occurred frequently until G.F. was approximately 15 years old and moved out of the bedroom he shared with defendant. In 2009, when G.F. was about 30 years old, he disclosed some of what defendant had done to a family member. He did not discuss the matter with anyone else until after A.B. came forward with allegations of abuse against defendant.
On cross-examination, defense counsel elicited testimony that G.F. continued to interact with defendant as an adult despite G.F.'s allegations that defendant abused him as a teenager. G.F. was also asked whether he recalled conversations among his siblings regarding money or their inheritance.
The People offered the testimony of N.W., who stated he is employed as a police officer, but was not directly involved with any investigation in this case in an official capacity. Due to his profession, N.W. is a mandated reporter and is required to report any instances of child abuse of which he becomes aware. N.W. first came to know A.B. sometime in 2015 when A.B. was dating N.W.'s daughter. He recalled that sometime in 2015, A.B. confided in him that A.B. had been abused by defendant in 2009. At the time, A.B. stated defendant had shown him pornographic magazines and reached into A.B.'s pants to touch A.B.'s penis. Following A.B.'s disclosure, N.W. contacted A.B.'s mother, as well as law enforcement authorities in Riverside, to report the allegations.
The People also called C.B. as a witness. C.B. is the mother of A.B., and she is the sister of defendant and G.F. She recalled that sometime in 2011, A.B. disclosed that defendant had shown A.B. pornography. She then recalled that in 2015 A.B. disclosed additional details regarding his interaction with defendant. C.B. testified that her knowledge of the additional allegations initially came from the parents of A.B.'s girlfriend. C.B. was not asked to disclose the substantive details of this conversation with the parents of A.B.'s girlfriend. C.B. testified she followed up with A.B. directly, who disclosed he was molested by, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial