People v. Jeff, F008620

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Citation204 Cal.App.3d 309,251 Cal.Rptr. 135
Decision Date31 August 1988
Docket NumberNo. F008620,F008620
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Darrell Wilfred JEFF, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 135

251 Cal.Rptr. 135
204 Cal.App.3d 309
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Darrell Wilfred JEFF, Defendant and Appellant.
No. F008620.
Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California.
Aug. 31, 1988.
As Modified Sept. 23, 1988.

[204 Cal.App.3d 313]

Page 136

Harvey R. Zall, State Public Defender, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Monica Knox, Interim State Public Defender, and Thomas L. Carroll, Deputy State Public Defender, for defendant and appellant.

John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Steve White, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Janet G. Bangle and Cynthia G. Besemer, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.


ROBERT L. MARTIN, Acting Presiding Justice.

On October 20, 1986, the Madera County District Attorney filed an information in superior court charging defendant as follows: counts I, II, III, XII, XIII, XIV, XXIII, XXIV and XXV--rape (Pen.Code, § 261, subd. (2)); 1 counts IV, V, VI, XV, XVI, XVII, XXVI, XXVII and XXVIII--sodomy ( § 286, subd. (c)); counts VII, VIII, XVIII, XIX, XXIX and XXX--oral copulation ( § 288a, subd. (c)); and counts IX, X, XI, XX, XXI, XXII, XXXI, XXXII and XXXIII--lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under age 14 ( § 288, subd. (a)). The district attorney further alleged in the commission of the offenses defendant engaged in substantial sexual conduct ( § 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)), occupied a position of [204 Cal.App.3d 314] special trust ( § 1203.066, subd. (a)(9)), and committed carnal abuse upon a female under age 10 ( § 645).

After trial, the jury returned verdicts finding defendant guilty on all counts and finding the special allegations to be true. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied defendant probation and sentenced him to 27 years in state prison. The court imposed the lower term of 3 years on counts I, II, III, XII, XIII, XIV, XXIII, XXIV and XXV (rape), with each count to

Page 137

be fully consecutive to the other counts. The court imposed the middle term of six years on counts IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX and XXX (sodomy and oral copulation), each count to be concurrent to the other terms imposed. The court also imposed the middle term of six years on counts IX, X, XI, XX, XXI, XXII, XXXI, XXXII and XXXIII (lewd and lascivious conduct), with the sentence on each count stayed pursuant to section 654.

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.


Gene and Morana C. owned two adjacent homes in North Fork, California. The Cs had three daughters, June, Sadie, and Karen. Defendant was married to Sadie. Gene and Morana lived in one house with their teenage daughter, June. From 1977 through 1984, Sadie and defendant lived in the other house with their three children. At the time of trial, defendant's children were ten, nine and eight years old, respectively.

Karen married and on July 11, 1975, gave birth to a daughter, Gypsy Rose. From 1976 until 1981, Gypsy Rose lived with her grandparents, Gene and Morana. During those years, the defendant helped raise Gypsy and bring her up like one of his own children.

In 1981, Karen married Karl C. O. and took Gypsy to live with them in Madera. Gypsy periodically visited her grandparents in North Fork in later years but never lived with them again.

Sometime between 1983 and 1985 Gypsy told her mother and teenage stepsister, Sandra C. O., the defendant had molested her. According to Gypsy, she informed Sandra of the molestations during the summer of 1984 while the two of them were at her grandparents' house in North Fork. Gypsy said she did not tell Sandra everything defendant had done, just that he had been hurting her.

[204 Cal.App.3d 315] Sandra said Gypsy told her of the molestations sometime in December 1983. 2 Sandra was able to pinpoint the year because Gypsy told Sandra at their parents' home on San Carlos Avenue in Madera. Sandra moved to that home with her parents and Gypsy during the summer of 1983 but had moved away by the following summer and was no longer living with the family.

Gypsy told her mother of the molestations at Sandra's urging. Karen disbelieved Gypsy and did nothing. However, despite her initial reaction, Karen approached her mother sometime in 1985 and told her Gypsy had accused defendant of molestation. Morana did not believe the report.

At the end of 1985, the entire C family spent Christmas in Madera with Karl and Karen. Gene, Morana, defendant and Sadie all said Gypsy acted normally that day. She did not exhibit fear of the defendant or seem depressed or otherwise unsettled.

During the summer of 1986, Gypsy began seeing counselor Nancy LeBlank. Gypsy told Blank the defendant had molested her. At about the same time she again told her mother the defendant had molested her.

In June 1986, Karen again told her mother that Gypsy was accusing defendant of molestation. Prompted by that conversation, Morana wrote Sadie a letter. Morana stated both Karen and Gypsy's psychiatrist were accusing defendant of "molesting" his own daughters and "messing around" with Gypsy.

Sadie received the letter on Friday, June 13, 1986. When defendant arrived home from work, she showed the letter to him. Defendant testified he was shocked when he read the letter. However, he only focused his attention on the portion of the letter accusing him of molesting his own daughters. Defendant testified there was a significant difference to him between "molesting," which suggested sexual acts, and "messing around," which meant just kidding around. As a result, defendant

Page 138

paid little attention to the allegations regarding Gypsy.

Immediately after reading the letter, defendant told Sadie to ask their children if he had done anything to them. Sadie asked the children and they denied any such thing had happened. Defendant angrily left the house and drove to the mountains to confront Karl and Karen about the allegations. As defendant neared the C. O. house, he saw Karl, Karen, and their children, [204 Cal.App.3d 316] including Gypsy, parked in front of the Bass Fork Mini Mart. Defendant pulled over and parked next to them. Karl got out of his car and came over to talk.

According to defendant, he confronted Karl and asked him why Karen and Gypsy's psychiatrist were accusing him of molesting his own daughters. Defendant said neither he nor Karl mentioned Gypsy nor any accusations about her. Defendant said at the time he was not even concerned about Gypsy. Rather, his sole concern was the accusations about his own daughters. Defendant said the conversation lasted about 10 minutes and although he was angry he was not crying. He said Karl told him a number of times he belonged in jail. However, defendant denied making a similar statement. Defendant also denied telling Karl he should have said something about the misconduct years before.

According to Karl, defendant appeared to be crying when he approached. Defendant said he was sorry for what he had done to Gypsy and he should have told Karl about the situation five years earlier. Karl told defendant he needed help but defendant said "maybe jail is where he belonged." Karl said defendant also wondered how long he would have to go to counseling. Gypsy testified she saw defendant and her stepfather talking but did not hear their conversation. She said her stepfather had a "bad look" on his face and it appeared defendant was crying.

In July 1986, a few weeks after the mini mart confrontation, counselor Nancy LeBlank arranged for Gypsy to talk to a deputy sheriff about her allegations. As a result, defendant was charged with a variety of sexual offenses.

Gypsy testified at trial she was 11 years old and enrolled in the sixth grade. She spent the summers from 1982 through 1984 living with her grandparents in North Fork. 3 Gypsy testified defendant sometimes babysat her during those summers, usually when her grandmother was running some errand. On those occasions, defendant also took care of his three children, the oldest of whom was a year younger than Gypsy.

Gypsy began her trial testimony by describing an act of sexual intercourse which allegedly occurred during the summer of 1984 when she was eight years old. Gypsy testified one day at her grandmother's house the defendant was babysitting her and her cousins. Defendant came into the [204 Cal.App.3d 317] house and told her cousins to go out and play. He then told Gypsy to take off her clothes and get onto the bed in the living room. Gypsy did as defendant told her. Defendant then took off his clothes, got on top of her, put his penis in her vagina and moved it up and down. Gypsy said it hurt when defendant inserted his penis. Gypsy said it hurt when defendant had intercourse with her but she never told him it hurt. She said she always did what defendant told her to do because she was afraid to refuse. However, Gypsy said she did not know what she feared. She said defendant never told her not to tell anyone, nor did he ever say he would hurt her if she did.

Gypsy also described another incident which allegedly occurred during the summer of 1984. She said one day defendant took her and her cousins swimming at a nearby creek. While they were at the creek, defendant left his own children by the swimming hole and took Gypsy to a sandy place behind some large rocks. Defendant and Gypsy were about 16 feet

Page 139

from the other children, who were playing on the other side of the rocks. Defendant told Gypsy to take off her clothes and lie down. Gypsy did as she was told. Defendant took off his pants, got on top of her, and placed his penis in her vagina. Gypsy said she complied with defendant's directions at the creek because she was afraid he might do something to her or her parents if she refused.

In addition to these two incidents, Gypsy said defendant had intercourse with her "a lot" during the summer of 1984. She did not state the specific number of acts but did say intercourse occurred more than three times. Gypsy said with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
78 cases
  • People v. Beckley, Docket Nos. 81583
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 5 Junio 1990
    ...facts before the court. 4 See also People v. Gray, 187 Cal.App.3d 213, 215-222, 231 Cal.Rptr. 658 (1986); People v. Jeff, 204 Cal.App.3d 309, 329-332, 337-339, 251 Cal.Rptr. 135 (1988); People v. Bergschneider, 211 Cal.App.3d 144, 121-22, 259 Cal.Rptr. 219, 226-227 (1989); People v. Stark, ......
  • People v. Wandrey
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 7 Julio 2022
    ...covers the timeframe(s) charged in the information, a defendant has all the notice the Constitution requires." ( People v. Jeff (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 309, 341–342.)Doe's testimony at the preliminary hearing about the circumstances and nature of the molestation was similar to, albeit less de......
  • State v. Altgilbers, 10071
    • United States
    • New Mexico Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • 7 Diciembre 1989
    ......) (admitting child's identification of perpetrators under equivalent of Rule 11-803(4)); People v. Oldsen, 697 P.2d 787 (Colo.App.1984) (same); State v. Red Feather, 205 Neb. 734, 289 N.W.2d 768 ...Jeff, 204 Cal.App.3d 309, 251 Cal.Rptr. 135 (5th Dist.1988) (counts embrace periods of time in which ......
  • People v. Pitts
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 5 Septiembre 1990
    ...... [Citations.]" (People v. Jeff (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 309, 330, 251 Cal.Rptr. 135, fn. omitted; see People v. Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 30, 130 Cal.Rptr. 144, 549 P.2d 1240; ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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