People v. Pea, H030507 (Cal. App. 8/30/2007)
| Decision Date | 30 August 2007 |
| Docket Number | H030507 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SAMMY SULUFAIGA PEA, Defendant and Appellant. |
Appeal from the Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC44908.
Defendant Sammy Pea was convicted after jury trial of three counts of incest (Pen. Code, § 285),1 and after court trial of one count of rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)). The court sentenced defendant to three years in state prison and imposed various fines and fees, including a $20 court security fee (§ 1465.8). On appeal, defendant contends that (1) the court committed prejudicial error in refusing to entertain his peremptory challenge, (2) his conviction for rape and for one count of incest are barred by the statute of limitations, (3) the court erred in refusing to allow impeachment of the victim with the contents of a letter written to her by a former boyfriend, (4) the evidence is insufficient to support the incest convictions, and (5) the imposition of the court security fee violates prohibitions against ex post facto and retroactive application of statutes. We disagree with these contentions and, therefore, affirm the judgment.
Defendant was charged by first amended information with two counts of rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2); counts 1 & 2), and three counts of incest (§ 285; counts 3-5). Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6, subdivision (a)(2),2 on May 10, 2006, the trial judge denied defendant's peremptory challenge as untimely. During motions in limine, the prosecutor sought to introduce evidence of the existence of a letter sent to the victim by a former boyfriend in Samoa, which was intercepted by defendant and presented by him to the police, but to exclude any evidence of the contents of the letter. Defendant sought to introduce the contents of the letter to impeach the victim's credibility. The court granted the prosecutor's request and ruled that the contents of the letter could not be used to impeach the victim.
The victim was born and raised in Samoa, where she lived with her mother, stepfather, and seven siblings. She thought that her stepfather was her biological father until defendant wrote her a letter when she was in high school, telling her that he was her father and expressing an interest in having contact with her. She asked her mother about defendant's letter. Her mother said that defendant had been her boyfriend, that defendant had left Samoa for the United States knowing that she was pregnant with the victim, and that defendant is the victim's father. She apologized for not telling the victim everything before then. The victim communicated with defendant through letters and phone calls. Her native language is Samoan, but she learned English in high school.
Defendant invited the victim to come to the United States, and offered to sponsor her. Her mother was upset about her leaving, but defendant paid for her plane ticket and led the victim and her mother to understand that the victim would be gone for only three months. The victim arrived in California in March 1995, a few weeks before her 18th birthday. Defendant took the victim's immigration papers and kept them in a locked file cabinet in his office. He gave her her green card, and explained what a green card is. After three months, the victim told defendant that she wanted to go home, but he told her that this was where she was supposed to be.
The victim lived with defendant and his wife and family. The first year she was here, the victim treated defendant like a daughter would treat her father; she respected and obeyed him. She started working on a daily basis for defendant at his office shortly after her 18th birthday. After she started taking classes in September 1995 to get her high school diploma, she worked in defendant's office after school. Defendant did not pay the victim for her work, and she relied on defendant and his family for her necessities. She wrote to her mother many times, but she never received any letters from her mother or from anybody else.
One day before her graduation ceremony in June or July 1996, when she was 19, the victim was in defendant's office when defendant got up and locked all the doors. He then pushed the victim up against the wall and started kissing her. He also rubbed her breasts and vagina over her clothes. The victim tried to push defendant away and asked him what he was doing; she was afraid and confused. Defendant said that he loved her. The victim continued to struggle and defendant finally stopped. The victim returned to her work area and did not call the police or tell anybody in defendant's family about the incident.
A few days later, defendant told his wife that he was going to teach the victim how to drive. After her driving lesson, some time between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m. that night, defendant drove the victim to a store parking lot and parked the car. The area was dark, and the victim asked defendant what they were doing there. Defendant did not answer her. He took off his and the victim's seat belts, and then climbed over the center console and got on top of the victim, facing her. He unzipped and pulled down his and the victim's pants and put his penis inside her vagina. The victim said, "please stop," and tried to push defendant away, but she was unable to do so. The victim was angry, afraid, and embarrassed. After defendant ejaculated, he climbed back into the driver's seat, threw napkins at the victim, and told her to wipe herself and to put her clothes on. The victim asked defendant what would happen if she told his wife about the incident, but defendant did not respond and drove them home. The victim did not tell defendant's wife what happened because the two of them were not close.
Defendant subsequently had intercourse with the victim three or four times each week. Sometimes it occurred at his house or in his car while defendant was giving the victim driving lessons, but most of the time it occurred at his office. The first four or five times, the victim struggled with defendant and told him that she did not want to do it. When defendant continued his sexual assaults, the victim stopped struggling and let him do whatever he wanted to do. She was embarrassed, afraid, and confused. Defendant told the victim many times that if she ever told anybody about their sexual contacts, he would "hang" her. He also said that nobody would believe her.
In early 1997, sometime after the victim actually received her high school diploma in January, the victim got a job at Trend Plastics. At the end of 1997, the victim quit her job and flew to Oregon to live with defendant's brother's family. She did not tell the family about her problems with defendant. She returned to California in May 1998, when defendant told his brother that defendant needed the victim to babysit while his wife worked. Defendant's brother sent the victim back to defendant. Defendant immediately began having sexual intercourse with the victim again. The sexual assaults would occur at defendant's house during weekdays when the victim was babysitting, or in defendant's office on the weekends.
One afternoon, the victim became upset at defendant's family and defendant beat her, causing her to have black eyes and a broken nose. Shortly thereafter, the victim found out that she was pregnant. She was afraid and embarrassed. Defendant wanted her to get an abortion, so she flew to Southern California and stayed with defendant's cousin, Yee-Hung Tonumaipea, and his wife. She told them that she had a problem with defendant, but she did not tell them that defendant had been sexually assaulting her or that she was pregnant. She stayed with Tonumaipea for only a few weeks because defendant called and threatened to kill her if she did not have an abortion. Defendant also called Tonumaipea often, encouraging him to send the victim back. The victim returned to the Bay Area and stayed with a friend she had met at Trend Plastics.
Defendant continued to call the victim and tell her to get an abortion. He took her to apply for medical insurance, and then, in the summer of 1998, to get the abortion. She told the abortion clinic that the father of her child was a boyfriend from Samoa who went back home. After the procedure defendant took the victim back to her friend's house, where she stayed; she did not go back to live with defendant. She continued to work at defendant's office on a daily basis, however, even though defendant was not paying her and he continued to have sexual intercourse with her two or three times each month. When the victim got a job at Unilab in October or November 1998, she continued to work at defendant's office on the weekends. She was still afraid of defendant and thought that if she did not do what he wanted her to do, he would carry out his threat to kill her.
The victim started dating David Hatch in May 2000. In early 2001, the victim told Hatch that defendant had sexually abused her beginning around the time of her high school graduation, and she showed him a "romantic" Valentine's Day card that defendant had given her. She said that she had moved out of defendant's home, but she did not say whether the abuse had stopped or was still occurring. Hatch encouraged the victim to talk to her church bishop and to the police. The victim told her church bishop that defendant had sexually assaulted her, and the bishop encouraged her to talk to the police and to family members. The victim called Tonumaipea and told him that defendant had sexually assaulted her, but Tonumaipea did not encourage her to do anything about it and he did not contact the police. The victim did not talk to the police herself because she was still afraid of defendant. The victim stopped dating Hatch in August 2002.
The victim started dating Robert S., who is now her husband, in early November 2002, and they...
To continue reading
Request your trial