People v. Griffin
| Decision Date | 24 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | F068898 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT LEE GRIFFIN, Defendant and Appellant. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
OPINIONAPPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jonathan M. Skiles, Judge.
Jonathan E. Berger and Thea Greenhalgh, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Stephanie A. Mitchell and Daniel B. Bernstein, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo- Robert Lee Griffin was convicted by jury of two counts of committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)) and one count of sexual penetration of a child age 10 or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b)). Griffin admitted a prior conviction and stipulated to a prior prison term allegation (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(I), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667.5., subd. (b)). Griffin was sentenced to a total aggregate term of 131 years to life.
On appeal, Griffin contends (1) the trial court abused its discretion and violated due process in admitting evidence of a prior 2006 misdemeanor sex crime and of data and images found on his computer; (2) that the trial court erred in refusing to give an instruction on the "fresh complaint" doctrine; (3) that CALCRIM No. 1193 was an incorrect statement of law; and (4) that the trial court abused its discretion in limiting evidence regarding a prior complaint of sexual molestation by one of the victims. We affirm.
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, R. I. frequently visited R. at the trailer. Griffin, R. and I. would watch television and play board games together. I. continued to go over to Griffin's trailer even after Griffin and R. had a falling out and R. 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 notdisclosed, 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.
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.1 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. toldthe 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 interviewer2 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.
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.'s mother, Stella, and prohibited M. from going to Griffin's house for a while.
In mid-November 2011, a confidential informant reported to authorities that Griffin was having contact with children despite being prohibited from doing so. After law enforcement learned I. and her siblings were among those children, that information was provided to Child Protective Services (CPS). A CPS worker interviewed the children at their school and then referred the case to the sheriff's department for investigation.
Stella gave the sheriff's department a letter I. had written to her on December 20, 2011. Stella did not disclose the contents of the letter during testimony.3 Stella also gave the sheriff's department multiple letters Griffin had written and mailed to I. One of those letters stated: Another letter included the post-script:
I. testified she was slow to report the abuse to her mother because she had been through a similar situation before and did not want to go "through what I had to before." She testified she wanted to tell the truth about what happened because Griffin "ruined" her life and she wanted to "make sure that he did go to jail."
Sheriff's Detective David Rippe of the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force conducted a forensic examination of Griffin's laptop computer. Rippe testified that Griffin's computer showed several Internet searches had been conducted under Griffin's user profile. Search terms included:...
To continue reading
Request your trial