People v. Oskuie
| Decision Date | 04 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | C088693 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KAYVAN MOHAMMAD OSKUIE, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant Kayvan Mohammad Oskuie sexually assaulted his daughter on multiple occasions. Following a trial, a jury found him guilty of two counts of committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 10 years in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends the court prejudicially erred in: (1) admitting expert testimony on child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (CSAAS); (2) admitting expert evidence regarding the statistical probability of false accusations; and (3) instructing the jury, pursuant to CALCRIM No. 1193, that expert testimony on CSAAS could be considered in evaluating witness credibility. Defendant concludes the cumulative prejudice arising from these errors requires reversal.
We conclude there was no prejudicial error and affirm the judgment.
Defendant was charged with two counts of lewd and lascivious acts upon a child less than 14 years (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)).1 The trial court suspended criminal proceedings under section 1368 and declared defendant mentally incompetent to stand trial. Several years later, the court found defendant competent to stand trial and reinstated criminal proceedings. The following evidence was adduced at trial.
Defendant was married to A.'s mother, S. A few years into their relationship, S. became aware of defendant's schizophrenia diagnosis. A. lived with her mother, her brother O., and defendant. When A. was three years old, S. had a "good touch" and "bad touch" conversation with her, and A. mentioned that defendant had touched her vagina. S. asked defendant about it, and he denied it. A. then "clammed up" and said nothing else. S. began sleeping in A.'s room and avoided leaving A. alone with defendant.
A. recounted an incident in 2011, when she was five years old. She sat on the living room couch with defendant, watching a basketball game on television. S. left the living room to take a bath. Defendant looked at A. and said, "[Y]ou know what that means." Defendant licked her vagina. He had done this "on multiple occasions," possibly four nights in a row. On this last occasion, A. kicked defendant's knee, ran to the bathroom where her mother bathed, and locked the door behind her.
A. recalled disclosing defendant's conduct to S. while S. was in the bathtub. However, S. remembered that A. told her the following day while they did an art project. S. told defendant's mother the following morning and had defendant leave the house. She did not call police because she focused on keeping A. safe. Defendant went to livewith his parents, and S. brought the children to visit defendant about every two weeks to maintain "normalcy." During one of these visits, A. asked defendant to promise S. not to do anything bad again so he could come home.
Several months later, child protective services (CPS) received a report from A.'s kindergarten teacher that A. disclosed the 2011 incident with her father to a classmate, who told a parent, who told the teacher, a mandated reporter. Detective Darin Pometta with the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department's child abuse unit investigated the reported molestation. Detective Pometta spoke with S., who stated that A. first disclosed the incident while they did an art project.
A. participated in a special assault forensic evaluation (SAFE) interview with a CPS social worker. A. stated that, when left alone with defendant, he would "touch [her] boom-boom." She said he "did it more than one time." A. described the final incident, when defendant said, " 'You know what that means,' " and "licked [her] boom-boom" after removing her clothes. A. said she told her mother on a "different day"; she disclosed the incident because defendant would otherwise "keep doing it." A. also said that she disclosed the incident to some school friends while in kindergarten.
Detective Pometta interviewed defendant. Defendant said he was born in Iran and entered the United States with his parents as a teenager. He acknowledged his schizophrenia diagnosis and stated that he receives monthly Haldol injections. He had been married for 13 years and felt that his wife wanted to end the relationship due to his illness. According to defendant, "the voices [had] been trying to make [him] have sex" with his children since they were born. When Detective Pometta asked defendant about A.'s allegation that he put his mouth on her vagina, he denied it and claimed that his voices "did it to her." Defendant volunteered that it is "okay" to have sex with children in Iranian culture but that he has fought "this stuff" since entering the United States. He claimed that he was molested as a child in Iran.
Two years after A.'s initial SAFE interview, she participated in another SAFE interview. In this interview, A. said that she was three when defendant said, " 'It's time,' " and "licked [her] privates." A. said that defendant did this only "two times." At trial, A. acknowledged that this statement about "two times" was a lie because she wanted to see her father, who was in jail. A. also told the interviewer about an earlier incident when defendant licked her privates but stopped when her mother exited the bathtub.
The prosecution called psychologist Dr. Blake Carmichael, an expert on sexual abuse of children, to testify on CSAAS. He did not know A. and was not familiar with the facts of the case. Dr. Carmichael testified that children often delay reporting sexual abuse for a variety of reasons, including that the child relies on the abuser for care, that the child is told to respect the abuser as an authority, and that the child still values the relationship and is reluctant to see it end, particularly when the abuser is a family member. Dr. Carmichael testified that children often incrementally disclose details of the abuse as they feel more comfortable and only share certain details with certain people. As time progresses, the core details of the abuse remain, but children often confuse peripheral specifics, such as date, time, location, and number of incidents. Further, Dr. Carmichael discussed disassociation during sexual abuse, causing an abused child to emotionally distance from the incident by not focusing on the act while it occurs. He also elaborated on accommodation, which occurs when a child cannot escape the perpetrator due to a close relationship. He acknowledged that younger children can make incarnate reports due to suggestion from others, including suggestive questioning. Dr. Carmichael further testified that a number of different studies have concluded that false accusations of child sexual abuse are quite rare. He explained that the studies found the rate of false allegations by children was in the range of 1 to 6 percent.
Dr. William O'Donohue testified as an expert in forensic interviews of child sexual assault victims. Prior to testifying, he reviewed the case's CPS and sheriff'sdepartment reports as well as the SAFE interview videos and transcripts. On cross-examination, Dr. O'Donohue conceded that a hypothetical scenario of a child revealing, without being asked, that he or she had been molested would "eliminate the concern about suggestibility." Dr. O'Donohue also testified that children commonly delay disclosure of molestation and that most perpetrators are known to the child. Finally, Dr. O'Donohue conceded that false allegations of sexual abuse from children are "rare."
A jury convicted defendant as charged. The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of 10 years.
Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Dr. Carmichael to testify as an expert on CSAAS. There was no abuse of discretion.
Prior to trial, the prosecutor moved in limine to admit CSAAS testimony from Dr. Carmichael, primarily to counter the anticipated testimony of the defense expert, Dr. O'Donohue. During argument on the motion, the court first addressed whether CSAAS testimony was warranted, believing that the "alleged victim reported [the abuse] promptly afterwards." The prosecutor replied that the CSAAS testimony was primarily sought to explain the victim's "inconsistencies" to the jury, given that the defense expert planned to focus on her inconsistent version of events. Defense counsel confirmed that Dr. O'Donohue would focus on inconsistencies in A.'s reports. When asked by the court if she objected, counsel said, "I object but I think [Dr. Carmichael] comes in . . . ." The court noted that "[g]iven the circumstances if it will be competing expert testimony, it would be unfair to allow one side in and not allow the other side in." Accordingly, the court allowed both experts to testify. The court confirmed its decision to "allow both [experts] in since there is really no objection to either."
The prosecutor then filed a motion to limit Dr. O'Donohue's testimony, which was opposed by defendant. The court addressed this motion and limited Dr. O'Donohue's testimony to hypothetical scenarios, not permitting testimony on the specific content of A.'s SAFE interviews. Defense counsel also objected to Dr. Carmichael's pending testimony because the prosecution had provided no expert report, hindering her ability to cross-examine him. The court again inquired why CSAAS testimony was necessary under circumstances where this was not a "typical delayed reporting" case. In response, the prosecutor...
To continue reading
Request your trial