People v. Van Hoek
Citation | 200 Cal.App.3d 811,246 Cal.Rptr. 352 |
Decision Date | 25 April 1988 |
Docket Number | No. F007837,F007837 |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert C. VAN HOEK, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Defendant, Robert C. Van Hoek, was found guilty of seven counts of lewd and lascivious conduct (Pen.Code, § 288, subd. (a)) and one count of unlawful sexual intercourse (Pen.Code, § 261.6). Count I was charged and found as occurring on or about January 1983; count II was charged and found as occurring on or about April 1983; and counts III, IV, V, VI and VII were charged and found that the lewd and lascivious acts occurred on or about 1985, 1984, 1982, 1981 and 1980, respectively. The unlawful sexual intercourse (count VIII) was charged and found as occurring on or about 1983.
Lynn was married to the defendant since 1964. They had eight children, including C., the victim in the instant case, who was born February 10, 1971, and was 15 years of age at the time of trial. During the first half of 1980 the family lived in Hanford. From August of 1980 until June of 1985 the family lived on Olive Street in Lemoore.
C. testified that her father began molesting her when she was three years old. When she lived on Olive Street he sometimes molested her twice a day. There would sometimes be a week between occurrences but it happened at least once a month on Olive Street.
C. testified that the same thing always happened. Defendant would call her into his room, they would talk, he would tell her she was his favorite and then he would either start kissing her or caressing her vagina or breasts with his hands. Defendant would start molesting C. with her clothes on and then he would take them off. In 1983 and 1984 defendant had sexual intercourse with C. five or six times.
In 1984 C. pushed defendant away because she had seen him with one of her sisters. She told him to quit. He tried to molest her in 1985 and she pushed him away.
C. could not link the molestations to any specific times such as a holiday, birthday or other significant event. She did recall three specific occasions when defendant molested her. One time C. was watching a certain television program. Defendant did not approve of the program and turned off the television. Defendant called C. up to her room and molested her. C. did not testify as to a date or which residence she was living in at the time this occurred. She recalled another time when her mother almost caught them. Defendant had not removed any of her clothing at this time. Again, C. did not identify this event by time or residence. C. also recalled a molestation while she was living in Hanford. She fell in the bathtub, her mother wrapped her in a towel and placed her on the bed. Her mother left and defendant started to molest her.
As previously set forth, C. testified generally as to when and how the molestations occurred. She never testified as to a specific instance except under cross-examination by defense counsel. This specific testimony is of no value because although the act was specified there was nothing to tie it to a particular time. C.'s specific testimony could have detailed acts which occurred at a time before the time charged (and the statute of limitations had run) and, even if it had occurred during the time charged, there was nothing to enable the jury to tie the specific instance to a specific charge. Thus, all that is left to support the charges is C.'s generic and amorphous testimony.
Defendant asserts that the failure to present evidence of any specific act to support the charged offenses requires reversal. Defendant contends that C. failed to identify a single specific occasion to which he could have presented a definite defense. "It is the failure of proof, the burden of which lies solely with the prosecution."
The "resident child molester" 1 cases pose perplexing questions. They involve two very important, yet somewhat conflicting, considerations. One overriding concern is that a child who has been molested on a regular basis and in a consistent manner might not have a meaningful reference point of time or detail by which to distinguish one specific act from another. The concern is that this problem will be exacerbated the more frequent and repetitive the molestation and the younger the victim. Thus, the prosecution's ability to establish one or more specific acts via the testimony of the minor victim decreases. Since minor children are usually molested outside the presence of witnesses and many of these acts leave no permanent physical evidence, the testimony of the minor victim may be the only evidence on which the prosecution can base its case. To render such testimony inadequate as a matter of law under circumstances like those here under discussion could effectively insulate the most egregious child molesters from prosecution.
The other consideration is predicated upon fundamental notions of due process which were first articulated by our Supreme Court in two 1901 decisions, People v. Castro (1901) 133 Cal. 11, 65 p. 13 and People v. Williams (1901) 133 Cal. 165, 65 P. 323. In both cases the defendant was charged with a single act of rape involving a young victim under the age of consent, and the victims each testified that there were multiple acts of sexual intercourse extending over a period of several months. In reversing the conviction in Castro, the Supreme Court stated:
(People v. Castro, supra, 133 Cal. at pp. 12-13, 65 P. 13.)
Also, in reversing the conviction in Williams, the Supreme Court held:
People v. Williams, supra, 133 Cal. at p. 168, 65 P. 323.)
The Attorney General contends that any failure by the prosecution to elect a specific act as to each count was cured when the trial court instructed the jury as to each count pursuant to CALJIC No. 17.01 as follows:
The Attorney General apparently relies on the so-called "either/or" rule which was recently stated as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Copeland
...most egregious child molesters from prosecution." Jones , 270 Cal.Rptr. 611, 792 P.2d at 651 (quoting People v. Van Hoek , 200 Cal.App.3d 811, 246 Cal. Rptr. 352, 354 (Ct. App. 1988) ). The court thus struck a balance to accommodate "all legitimate due process concerns" without immunizing r......
-
People v. Moore
...analysis employed in Atkins has its genesis in another Fifth District case, also authored by Justice Ballentyne, People v. Van Hoek (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 811, 246 Cal.Rptr. 352, review denied August 18, 1988. Van Hoek employs substantially identical language to that used in Atkins. (Van Hoe......
-
State v. Altgilbers
... ... State, 19 Ark.App. 9, 715 S.W.2d 883 (1986) (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 (1980) (same); State v. Aguallo, 318 N.C. 590, ... at 19, 249 Cal.Rptr. at 865. The rationale of Atkins was identical to that in People v. Van Hoek, 200 Cal.App.3d 811, 246 Cal.Rptr. 352 (5th Dist.1988), from which Atkins took several passages verbatim. We quote at length from Van Hoek to ... ...
-
People v. Fernandez
...in the family gave defendant backrubs in his bedroom. Discussion I. Due Process Violation Relying primarily on People v. Van Hoek (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 811, 246 Cal.Rptr. 352, defendant claims that except for the few instances when R. recalled particular acts of molestation, the prosecution......