People v. Saetern
| Decision Date | 08 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | C080396 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NATHAN SAETERN, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
As the trial court noted during judgment and sentencing in this case, the evidence showed defendant Nathan Saetern engaged in a pattern of domestic violence against the victim "that had been ongoing for a number of years and [was] perpetrated primarily through victim degradation and extreme emotional abuse that placed [the victim] in fear of the defendant." The events culminated in abuse on February 2 and 3, 2015, for which a jury convicted defendant of dissuading a witness by force or threat (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (c)(1)),1 criminal threat (§ 422), attempted forcible penetration with a foreign object (§§ 664, 289, subd. (a)), three counts of child endangerment (§ 273a, subd. (b)), sexual battery (§ 243.4, subd. (e)(1)), and battery of a spouse (§ 243, subd.) (e)(1)). The jury also found true allegations defendant personally used a firearm when committing the offenses of dissuading a witness and criminal threat. The trial court reduced the conviction for dissuading a witness to witness intimidation (§ 136.1, subd. (a)(1)), for lack of a specific finding by the jury regarding use of force or threat. Defendant was sentenced to serve eight years in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends (1) the evidence was insufficient to convict him of attempted forcible penetration or sexual battery on the victim, (2) the jury heard unduly prejudicial evidence regarding his prior acts of domestic violence on the victim, (3) the trial court erred in denying his motions for disclosure of juror identifying information and a continuance to further investigate possible juror misconduct, (4) the trial court should have granted his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, (5) section 654 requires his sentence for sexual battery to be stayed, and (6) he is entitled to a remand for resentencing on his firearm enhancement under Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2017, ch. 682, § 1 (SB 620)).
We conclude substantial evidence supported the jury's convictions of defendant on the counts of attempted forcible penetration and sexual battery. The prior acts evidence was very similar to the conduct for which defendant was charged and was not unduly inflammatory. The trial court properly denied the new trial motion because the proposed evidence was not newly discovered but a new expert opinion regarding previously disclosed evidence. Consistent with section 654, we stay the sentence on defendant's conviction of sexual battery. And we remand the matter to allow the trial court toexercise its newly granted discretion under SB 620 to strike or dismiss the firearm enhancements.2
Defendant and the victim married in 1992 and had 14 children together. During trial, the victim was pregnant with their 15th child. In February 2015, 12 of the children still lived at home at their residence in Anderson.
On February 2, 2015, the victim left defendant in charge of three children while she went to do a pick up at preschool. When the victim returned, she found the three children in the rain in the driveway area in front of the house. The victim grew angry because defendant had not supervised the children. Defendant walked into the house 30 minutes later. He denied failing to supervise the children. The victim was angry and told him that she and the children would move out. The victim left and spent two hours trying to find a new place to live before she gave up and returned. Upon her return, she found defendant had thrown her clothes outside and into the rain.
That night, the victim went to bed in the master bedroom of the house. She wore long pants and a long blouse to bed. Around midnight, defendant came to bed and tried to embrace her. The victim was still angry and told him, Defendant indicated he wanted to have sex with her, and the victim refused. Defendant pulled his pants down to expose his erect penis, pulled down her pants to knee level, and placed his hand over her vaginal area. Defendant attempted to insert his fingers into her vagina. The victim pushed his hand away and tried to pull her pants up. When she tried to get up from bed, defendant put his hands on her shoulders and pushed her back down. Defendant got angry and walked out.
Defendant returned a second time at 1:00 a.m. He embraced the victim, spoke nicely to her and indicated he wanted to have sex. Defendant pulled her pants down a second time. And the victim again responded by saying, "no" and pulling her pants back up. The victim told him to leave the room and he did.
After another hour, defendant returned a third time. She told him, The victim told the officer that "similar conduct happened again the third time" during which he pulled her pants down, she pushed his hands away from her vaginal area, and pulled her pants up. Defendant became "really upset," left and again threw the victim's clothes out.
The victim testified defendant requires her to have sex with him every night. At trial, she acknowledged she may have told the police she had to have sex with defendant every night to avoid him becoming violent with her.
At 3:00 in the morning, the victim saw defendant with a black handgun pointed downwards. The victim later told police that defendant threatened: "If you call the police and get another restraining order, I will kill you and everyone in here." The victim believed he would follow through with the threat.
Shortly after 9:00 a.m. on February 3, 2015, City of Anderson Police Officer Eric Haynes responded to One Safe Place - a women's refuge shelter. The victim appeared scared. Officer Haynes interviewed the victim without the need of an interpreter because he discerned one was not necessary. The victim recounted defendant's assaults on her. At trial, the victim recanted and claimed she misunderstood the police officer's questions due to a language barrier. However, she acknowledged her daughter was there and able to translate.
After defendant's arrest, the victim visited defendant in jail several times. During trial, the victim recanted her accusations regarding defendant's conduct on February 2 and 3, 2015. She claimed a language barrier had created misunderstandings anddefendant had not assaulted her. The victim further testified defendant sought her consent before attempting to have sex with her.
After interviewing the victim, Officer Haynes went to the residence of defendant and the victim where he saw a pile of clothes "in front of the front door in the lawn, dirt, mud area." Officer Haynes found defendant hiding inside a tarp in the backyard. Defendant received a Miranda advisement and responded to questions by the police officer. Defendant stated he had been watching the children the day before and he and the victim had just argued "a little bit." Defendant denied engaging in any domestic violence. He stated the victim became angry when he suggested she had a boyfriend.
During the previous night, defendant stated he and the victim had slept in the same bed. Defendant wanted to have sex with C.L, but she refused him. Defendant acquiesced and did not "push her." Defendant admitted he was a "little bit" upset. Defendant gave the victim a hug while she was sleeping, but she said, "no" and then pushed him away. Defendant tried "two or three times" but the victim refused each time. Defendant admitted pulling down her pants, but stated she pulled them up each time. Defendant was "touching her . . . thigh" when the victim "pushed [his] hand away." He stated, "I don't . . . jam up her, no." Later defendant passed through the hallway with a .22 caliber gun in his hand, but he then put it away.
The prosecution called Shasta County District Attorney's Office Inspector Mick Wallace as an expert on domestic violence. Inspector Wallace explained that research shows domestic violence tends to occur in a distinct cycle that is characterized by tension building, a violent outburst, a honeymoon cycle, followed again by tension building. Domestic violence victims are often hesitant to report the abuse for fear of further victimization. Inspector Wallace noted that regularly "victims would describe submitting to a sexual act so that they wouldn't be beaten . . . ." He also noted that, "in fact, it's verycommon for victims to stay in abusive relationships, recant initial statements to law enforcement . . . ."
In April 1999, the victim went to One Safe Place and filled out paperwork for a restraining order against defendant. The victim told the person at One Safe Place who was helping her secure the restraining order that defendant hit her in the head with a telephone and pulled her hair. The victim further reported defendant had choked her in March 1999. At some point, defendant hit her on her left leg and left a bruise. At other times, defendant threatened to kill her with a knife and to poison her when she went to sleep. Defendant told her he would then take their children and report to everyone that the victim had killed herself. At a later point, the victim cancelled the restraining order on grounds she and defendant had reconciled. During trial, the victim recanted and said these allegations were not true.
At some point, the victim told people at One Safe Place that defendant beat her...
To continue reading
Request your trial