California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Triggs-Nuñez, C084647 (Cal. App. 2020):
From this evidence, the jury correctly determined defendant acted with the requisite intent. He committed the act at night and in his victim's bed. When penetrating her rectum, defendant did not explain what he was doing or why, and there is no evidence the victim suffered from a medical issue needing attention. While defendant argues the evidence suggests he was checking for redness, we are not convinced. The victim testified it was defendant's touching that made her rectum red, not that the redness prompted the touching. Moreover, the jury was permitted to consider defendant's other charged offenses and his past convictions when determining whether he intended to sexually gratify himself. (See People v. Martinez (1995) 11 Cal.4th 434, 445 [among
other circumstances, jury can consider other acts of lewd conduct admitted or charged in the case].)
When assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must accept logical inferences the jury might have drawn from the evidence. (People v. Halvorsen, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 419.) The fact that defendant committed his acts at night and in the victim's bed and not in a lighted bathroom, dispels any suggestion the defendant penetrated the victim's rectum for medical reasons. Instead, this evidence leads to a more logical inference, especially when considered with defendant's current and past offenses, that defendant penetrated the victim's rectum for the purpose of sexual gratification.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.