People v. Prater

• Docket Number: C095412
• Decision Date: 01 May 2023
• Parties: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JESSICA DIANE PRATER, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

1

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JESSICA DIANE PRATER, Defendant and Appellant.

C095412

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento

May 1, 2023

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

(Super. Ct. No. 16FE010948)

HULL ACTING P. J.

Defendant Jessica Diane Prater, with knowledge that her boyfriend, Adam Caldwell, was severely beating her five-year-old son, Z failed to take any reasonable steps to prevent the continuation of this abuse. On the day of Z.'s murder Caldwell tortured the boy by undressing him, placing him in cold bath water, and repeatedly pulling one of his legs up into the air, causing the boy's head to submerge beneath the water line and strike the bottom of the bathtub. Caldwell did so in order to interrogate Z. over certain items he believed the boy took from him and hid somewhere in the house.

Defendant was home at the time. Rather than prevent Caldwell from doing this to her son, she participated by asking Z. to tell Caldwell what he wanted to know. The torture went on for at least two hours and resulted in the boy's death.

A jury convicted defendant of one count of first degree murder on the theory that she aided and abetted a murder by torture one count of assault causing the death of a child, and one count of child abuse likely to produce great bodily injury and resulting in death. The trial court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate state prison term of 25 years to life.

On appeal, defendant contends: (1) the trial court prejudicially erred, violated her federal constitutional rights, and also violated separation of powers principles under the California Constitution, by providing the jury with two instructions informing the jury that defendant could be convicted of aiding and abetting the murder of her son based on her failure to act despite owing a legal duty to take reasonable steps to protect and obtain medical attention for her child; and (2) the matter must be remanded for a new sentencing hearing because defendant is entitled to retroactive application of certain ameliorative changes to the sentencing laws.

We affirm. The jury was properly instructed in accordance with People v. Rolon (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1206 (Rolon), and other Court of Appeal decisions, holding that a parent's knowledge of continuous abuse being inflicted upon his or her child, along with the parent's failure to take reasonable steps to prevent the abuse, can support aider and abettor liability if the nonintervention was intended to facilitate the abuse. (Id. at p. 1219; People v. Ogg (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 173, 181; People v. Swanson-Birabent (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 733, 744.) Contrary to defendant's argument on appeal, our Supreme Court's decision in People v. Partee (2020) 8 Cal.5th 860 (Partee) did not impliedly overrule any of these decisions. There was therefore no instructional error and defendant's constitutional rights were not violated. We also conclude remand for a new sentencing hearing is not required. While recent changes to the sentencing laws apply retroactively to defendant's case, the errors asserted on appeal are harmless.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Defendant and Z. moved in with Caldwell about two months before the child's death. Z. was five years old. Defendant also had two older sons, who did not live there. Caldwell had partial custody of three of his own children, a 10-year-old son and two older daughters, who were 12 and 14 years old respectively.

Caldwell severely beat Z., both with his hands and with various objects, including a leather belt, a switch, and a fire stoker. During defendant's interview at the sheriff's station, she explained that Caldwell did so because Z. "was taking his stuff and hiding it." Defendant said she thought Z. was "just calling out for attention," and that he was hiding Caldwell's belongings because he was jealous of Caldwell and did not want them to be together. Defendant admitted, however, that Z. said he wanted them to leave Caldwell's house "because [Caldwell] spanked him."

These were not mere spankings. They concerned Caldwell's oldest daughter enough for her to tell defendant that she needed to stop her father from beating Z. Photos taken following Z.'s death showed extensive bruising covering the boy's body, confirming the extent of the abuse inflicted upon him by Caldwell during the two months he lived there. Defendant admitted that she saw the bruising on her son's body and that it was not consistent with mere spanking.

Further confirming defendant's knowledge of the abuse, about two weeks before the murder, she sent a text message to a friend saying that Z. was "tougher than [she] thought," adding: "That boy can take a spanking with a real leather belt and not shed one tear." Later that day, defendant messaged the same friend saying: "[Z.] broke a $400 saw thing, lost [Caldwell's] saw blade .... I can't afford to pay him for this shit. [Z.] is just going to keep doing these things until it's just me and him again." The next day, defendant sent another message saying: "[Z.] got into [Caldwell's] guns. They were in our closet. I can't believe he did that. [Z.] is fine. They weren't loaded, but it's the fact that he didn't listen. [Caldwell] and [I] have done everything." A subsequent message stated: "[Caldwell] told him not to touch his guns. WTF is wrong with my kid? He has no respect for me or anyone else. I'm done."

The night before the murder, Caldwell beat Z. with the belt for getting into his ammunition, which was located in Caldwell's bedroom. During her interview at the sheriff's station, defendant initially said that she told Caldwell to stop, grabbed Z., and left the house. Defendant claimed she and Z. walked to a school, but then returned to the house after she was unable to get a hold of her mother to pick them up. Later, when one of the detectives told defendant they would be able to pull up security camera footage from the school to see whether this was true, she admitted she did not leave the house with Z. that night.

The abuse continued the next morning. Caldwell began by questioning Z. about the location of items he still believed the boy had taken from him. Not satisfied with Z.'s answers, Caldwell filled the bathtub with cold water, undressed the boy, and put him inside. As defendant described, Caldwell "kept asking him, 'Where's my stuff? Where's my stuff?'" After asking the question, Caldwell would grab one of Z.'s feet and pull his leg up into the air, causing the boy's head to submerge beneath the water line and strike the bottom of the bathtub.

Defendant's account of how long this went on, and her level of participation, changed during her interview. At first, defendant claimed Caldwell did this to her son six times. According to defendant, she immediately "walked over and . . . said, 'Okay. That's enough.'" After further pleading for Caldwell to stop, he eventually did. Defendant then pulled Z. out of the water, dried him off, and put clothes on the boy. Z. was shivering, looked exhausted, and also threw up a lot of water, so defendant wrapped him in a blanket, placed him on a bed, and stayed with him until his lips turned purple. According to this version of events, the entire episode lasted "half an hour."

After some questioning about the timeline, defendant admitted Caldwell had Z. in the bathtub "for a long time." She now estimated it was more like two hours, but instead of being there for the entire episode, defendant claimed she periodically left the bathroom to look for the items Caldwell said were missing. While looking in the garage, defendant had a cigarette. When asked why she did not call 911 while she was in the garage, defendant claimed she was afraid of Caldwell. However, earlier in the interview, she admitted that Caldwell never hit or threatened her, adding that if he had ever done that to her, she "wouldn't be there." This sentiment was an echo of an earlier comment she made when briefly interviewed at the hospital. There, after denying that Caldwell ever engaged in any acts of violence against her, defendant stated: "I don't put up with that."

Defendant also claimed during her interview at the sheriff's station that when she came back into the house after smoking a cigarette in the garage, she told Caldwell to stop. Caldwell eventually relented and walked out of the bathroom, leaving Z. in the cold water. Defendant pulled him out, dressed him, and placed him on the bed. According to defendant, she called 911 about 15 minutes later when she realized he was not breathing.

Later in the interview, defendant admitted she knew Caldwell's conduct could have killed her son, specifically, "his head going underwater." She also admitted that Z. lost consciousness before she put him on the bed and his breathing was "shallow." She then changed her version of events again, claiming she did not wait 15 minutes to call 911, but rather immediately called Caldwell into the room after noticing Z.'s shallow breathing, Caldwell started cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and defendant called 911. At this point in the interview, after being asked to consent to a search of her cell phone, defendant admitted she spoke with her mother and oldest son on the phone for about 45 minutes while Z. was being tortured in the bathtub. She did not tell them what was happening to Z.

Still later in the interview, defendant admitted using the bathroom while Caldwell was torturing her son in the bathtub, adding "I just probably had to pee." She further admitted hearing Z.'s head strike the bottom of the tub when Caldwell pulled his leg up to dunk his head below the water line and acknowledged this might have happened as many as 13 times. Defendant finally admitted participating in the interrogation,...