People v. Masterson CA2/2

Filed 10/27/26 P. v. Masterson CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, B333069 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA487932) v. DANIEL PETER MASTERSON, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Charlaine F. Olmedo, Judge. Affirmed. Cliff Gardner and Lazuli Whitt for Defendant and Appellant. Schaerr | Jaffe, Gene C. Schaerr, James C. Phillips; Cohen Williams and Alyssa D. Bell for the Church of Scientology International as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorneys General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Blythe J. Leszkay, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ****** Defendant and appellant Daniel Peter Masterson appeals his conviction of two counts of forcible rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)).1 The jury found true the allegation that defendant committed the offense against more than one person. Defendant was sentenced to consecutive terms of 15 years to life on each count, for a total prison term of 30 years to life. We affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND On June 3, 2021, an information charged defendant with three counts of forcible rape against J.B., N.T., and C.B. and alleged that he raped more than one person. At defendant’s first trial in 2022, the jury deadlocked on all counts, and the trial court declared a mistrial. At defendant’s second trial in 2023, victims J.B., N.T., C.B. and witness Kathleen J. each testified that she was raped by defendant between 2000 and 2003. Defendant, J.B., N.T., and C.B. were all affiliated with the Church of Scientology at the time. The victims disclosed the rapes to Scientology ethics officers, who dissuaded them from reporting defendant to the police. J.B. nevertheless reported defendant to the police in 2004, but the district attorney’s office declined to prosecute. In 2016, after learning about J.B.’s allegations, C.B. reported defendant to 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless stated otherwise. 2 the police. Additional women came forward claiming to have been raped by defendant, who was charged in 2020 with three counts of forcible rape with a one-strike allegation that he committed the offense against more than one victim. The jury in the 2023 trial convicted defendant of count 1 (against J.B.) and count 2 (against N.T.), deadlocked on count 3 (against C.B.), and found true the one strike allegation. I. J.B.’s testimony J.B. testified she met defendant in 1997. They were both Scientologists, shared common friends, and socialized together. J.B. was also friends with defendant’s assistant, Brie Shaffer, who was also a Scientologist. A. 2002 uncharged incident In September 2002, J.B., defendant, and a group of friends went to a bar after a film screening. Shaffer agreed to drive J.B. home that night because J.B. was planning to drink alcohol for the first time in nine months. Shaffer was running late but phoned J.B. to say she would be there. When J.B. joined the group at a table, defendant had a drink waiting for her. J.B. consumed the drink and got up. When she returned, another drink was waiting. The second drink was very strong, and J.B. did not finish it. When she got up to use the restroom, she felt drunk. When J.B. returned from the restroom, defendant told her Shaffer was not coming but J.B. could stay in his guest room that night. Defendant drove J.B. to his home. When they arrived, J.B. felt intoxicated and had difficulty ascending the stairs that led from the street to the front door of defendant’s home. She said she was surprised she felt so drunk after only two drinks. Defendant said, “Oh, the second was a triple. Oops.” After they 3 entered the home, defendant gave J.B. a glass of liquid. J.B. did not know whether it was water or alcohol. J.B. turned toward the guest room, which was on the first floor of the home, but defendant pulled her toward the stairs leading to his second floor bedroom. In defendant’s bedroom they started kissing. J.B. told defendant, “This is so stupid. What are we doing?” Defendant had given J.B. no previous indication that he wanted to be intimate with her. He had called J.B. his “homie” in the past, and J.B. never thought they were anything more than friends. J.B. was on her back on defendant’s bed. She testified, “At some point, I recall him having intercourse with me. I wasn’t saying No. I was laughing.” J.B. fell asleep. When she awoke, she was on her stomach, and her feet were touching the floor. She felt a sharp stabbing pain, a burning sensation, and penetration in her anus. J.B. pulled away, and the stabbing sensation stopped but the pain continued. She rolled over and eventually fell asleep again. When she woke up the following day, defendant was gone. J.B. asked a friend to pick her up. She told the friend she and defendant had sex but did not mention the anal sex. J.B. felt “[c]onfused; a little hurt; stunned and really, really ashamed.” J.B. had pain and a burning sensation in her anus and pain on her right side. She saw a doctor for the pain on her side but did not mention the anal penetration. J.B. told her friends Lisa Presley and Paige Dorian about the September 2002 sex with defendant. They were shocked and horrified. Word about the incident spread to the Scientology community and to defendant’s friends through written “knowledge reports.” J.B. explained that Scientologists are 4 instructed or trained to file knowledge reports about themselves or fellow members to inform the organization about a Scientology member’s bad behavior. J.B. had seen knowledge reports about her regarding the September 2002 sex incident with defendant. After the Church of Scientology learned of the September 2002 incident between J.B. and defendant, it directed J.B. to undergo counseling “to look for my part in this and why I had had this happen to me.” J.B. eventually concluded that it was “the greatest good for the greatest number that I let it go.” She no longer felt safe being alone with defendant, however, and saw him less frequently. B. April 24, 2003 rape On April 24, 2003, J.B. drove to Shaffer’s house, which Shaffer shared with Luke Watson and his sister, who were also Scientologists. J.B. intended to spend the night there because she had agreed to drive Shaffer to the airport early the following morning. Later that evening, Shaffer drove J.B. and Watson to a birthday party at a nearby restaurant. J.B. had dinner at the restaurant but consumed no alcohol. After dinner, Shaffer returned home to finish packing, and J.B. left with two other women to go to a club. One of the women agreed to drive J.B. to Shaffer’s home at the end of the night. Watson said he would meet up with J.B. later to give her keys to the house. The club J.B. and her companions intended to visit was closed. The group ended up at defendant’s home, where 20 or 30 people had gathered. Watson was also there. J.B. went to an outdoor patio where she sat talking with Watson. Defendant came outside and asked J.B., “What are you drinking?” She responded, “I don’t know, vodka something.” Defendant went back inside and a short time later handed J.B. a clear tumbler 5 containing red liquid. That drink was the first and only alcoholic beverage J.B. had that night. Defendant went back inside the house, and J.B. consumed half the drink, which tasted like fruit punch. Approximately 30 minutes later, defendant came back outside wearing swim shorts and said “[J.B.] is going in the Jacuzzi.” J.B. and Watson both said, “No,” but defendant grabbed J.B.’s wrist and pulled her out of her chair. Defendant pulled J.B. through the house, with Watson following saying, “Oh, come on, man.” When they reached a set of stairs leading to the backyard Jacuzzi, defendant picked J.B. up and carried her to the Jacuzzi while she struggled to remove her boots and pants. Defendant put J.B. on the Jacuzzi ledge and pushed her in. In the Jacuzzi, J.B. felt dizzy and had difficulty breathing. She felt like her body was shutting down. When J.B. told Watson how she felt, he helped her out of the Jacuzzi, wrapped her in a towel, and set her down on the outdoor tile. Because J.B. could not sit up, Watson supported her. J.B. felt confused and nauseated. Her vision was impaired. She heard defendant say to Watson, “She needs to throw up. I’m going to stick my fingers down her throat.” J.B. said, “No,” and Watson said, “Let me do it. It’s better I do it.” Defendant said, “No, I’m just going to take her. I’m going to take her to the bathroom. I’m going to stick my fingers down her throat. I’m going to make her throw up.” Defendant picked up J.B., who protested. Watson continued to insist he would help. Defendant responded, “Oh, my god, she’s my homie. I would never. I’m not going to lay a hand on her.” Defendant then carried J.B. to an upstairs bathroom, despite there being another bathroom downstairs. Once upstairs, defendant put J.B. down on the bathroom floor, held her by the waist and stuck his fingers down her throat. 6 J.B. vomited and slumped down on the floor. Defendant told her, “You’re disgusting, you’re getting vomit all over your hair. You’re covered in vomit.” J.B. passed out. When she regained consciousness, the shower was running and defendant was dragging her into the shower. She said, “No, no, no. Please leave me here.” J.B. realized she was naked when defendant began soaping her breasts. She again lost consciousness. When she came to, defendant had a towel and picked her up and carried her through a door. J.B. landed on her back on a bed and again lost consciousness. When J.B. regained consciousness, defendant was having sexual intercourse with her. He was angrily saying, “You’re not going to fucking tell Lisa. You know what you’re not going fucking to do? You’re not going to fucking tell anyone. It’s nobody’s fucking business. You’re not going to tell Paige. You’re not going to tell Lisa. You like this. This feels good.” J.B. believed defendant was angry that she had told Presley and Dorian about the September 2002 incident. J.B. grabbed a pillow and tried to pushed it between them. Defendant pushed the pillow back forcefully onto J.B.’s face. She could not breathe and reached for something to grab onto. Defendant used one hand to pin J.B.’s hands above her head. He put his other hand on J.B.’s neck and squeezed until she passed out. While doing so, defendant continued to sexually penetrate her. When J.B. came to, she was on the right side of the bed near a nightstand with a table lamp. She heard banging on the door and a man’s voice yelling frantically. Defendant seemed agitated and alarmed and pulled a gun out of the nightstand drawer. He did not threaten J.B. with the gun but told her to 7 “shut the fuck up.” Defendant responded to the voice at the door, dropped the gun back into the drawer, but did not close the drawer. J.B. reached toward the nightstand trying to grab the gun, and defendant asked, “What the fuck are you doing?” J.B. replied, “I’m trying to grab the lamp, I’m trying to find something to hit you with.” Defendant slammed the drawer shut on J.B.’s hand. He then got up and told J.B. not to move. J.B. again lost consciousness. When J.B. regained consciousness, defendant was gone. She attempted to leave the room but could not sit up. She rolled off the bed and crawled into a closet, where she hid. Sometime later, J.B. heard defendant calling her name. She did not respond and remained in the closet, where she again passed out. When J.B. awoke, it was morning. She was cold, naked, confused, and still in the closet. She crawled out of the closet past the bed and heard defendant say, “What the fuck are you doing?” Defendant was on the bed looking down at her. He got up, put her on the bed, and said, “Go the fuck to sleep.” J.B. again passed out. J.B. next heard defendant say, “Hey, wake up. Luke’s downstairs.” She opened her eyes and thought to herself, “Oh, my God, what am I doing? How did I get here? What just happened?” After dressing and going downstairs, J.B. saw Watson and said, “I need to ask you a question.” Watson responded, “Nope, no talking. You’re not going to say anything. You’re going straight to [Scientology’s Celebrity Centre], straight to the president’s office.” Watson called a taxi for J.B., but J.B. directed the driver to take her to Shaffer’s house instead. J.B. retrieved her belongings and drove to her parents’ home, where 8 her father’s birthday party was in progress. Throughout the day J.B. experienced vaginal pain and gastrointestinal distress. J.B. and her family flew to Florida that night for a long- planned family vacation. About 24 to 48 hours after arriving in Florida, bruises became visible on J.B.’s neck, back, inner thighs, left arm, and right hand. J.B.’s cousin Rachel Dejneka noticed the bruises and asked what happened. J.B. told her she had been at defendant’s home and that “[s]omething really, really bad happened to me.” J.B. made Rachel promise not to tell anyone. After J.B. returned from Florida, she reported the April 24, 2003 rape to Julian Swartz, her Scientology ethics officer. J.B. explained that she was under Swartz’s supervision. When J.B. told Swartz that defendant raped her, Swartz closed the door to his office and said, “We don’t say that word.” He retrieved several Scientology books from a bookshelf, slammed them down on a table, and asked J.B., “Who did you tell?” Swartz then directed J.B. to read sections in the books that prohibited her from reporting defendant to law enforcement. Swartz explained that doing so would be considered “suppressive for Scientology.” J.B. reported to Swartz for several days. Swartz directed her to write several reports, including a knowledge report about the April 24, 2003 incident with defendant. Swartz rejected several drafts of J.B.’s reports and instructed her to rewrite them so they did not portray her as a victim. J.B. explained that being a victim is “a criminal act in Scientology.” Swartz told J.B. she could not use the term “rape” in any of her reports. J.B. testified, “I had to write it from the view that I was completely responsible for the condition I found myself in … .” Swartz also admonished J.B. not to mention the presence of a gun in any of her reports. 9  In December 2003, J.B. was summoned to Scientology’s Celebrity Centre for a “punishment action” for reporting defendant’s rape. J.B. spent months in an “ethics program” requiring her to report daily to Swartz for interrogations to determine what she had done to cause the incident with defendant. Swartz led J.B. to believe that the Celebrity Centre would handle defendant. However, J.B. lost confidence that Scientology would address defendant’s conduct when she read defendant’s report of the April 24, 2003 incident. Defendant’s report confirmed the events described in J.B.’s report but denied it was rape. J.B. thereafter received a “non-‘interbulation’ order,” which was also sent to everyone in her group. The order stated that a third party investigation had been initiated against J.B. J.B. described the investigation as similar to a court martial. The order further stated J.B. would be expelled if there were any additional reports that she had upset any member of the group. J.B. explained that being expelled from Scientology meant she would “lose everything,” including all contact with her parents, lest they too suffer expulsion. In April 2004, J.B. made a formal request to the Church of Scientology for permission to file a civil lawsuit and criminal charges against defendant. Pursuant to Scientology policy, J.B. had to send a written request to Scientology’s International Justice Chief for permission. J.B. received a written response to her request on April 21, 2004. The response cited a policy on “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists,” which prohibits reporting a member in good standing to civil authorities. J.B. cried when she learned that 10 defendant was still considered a member in good standing. Reporting defendant to law enforcement would therefore be considered a suppressive act violative of Scientology policy and sanctionable by excommunication. On June 6, 2004, J.B. reported the rape to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) at the Hollywood Wilcox Station. She spoke to the desk officer on duty that day, Alexander Schlegel, who took notes. J.B. gave Schlegel a redacted copy of her knowledge report, something written by defendant, and photographs of her taken in Florida. J.B. told Schlegel about sex with defendant in September 2002, which she said was consensual. She admitted having too much to drink that night. At Schlegel’s request, J.B. provided names of people who could verify she knew defendant. She gave him Swartz’s name, as well as Watson’s and a few others. In July 2004, the Church of Scientology’s internal legal counsel asked J.B. to sign a nondisclosure agreement. J.B. signed the agreement because she believed she had no choice. The agreement refers to defendant as Danny Duncan and prohibits J.B. from saying his name, anything about him, or anything about the rape. The agreement provided for a $400,000 payment to J.B. In late 2001 or early 2002, Shaffer contacted J.B. and asked her to gain C.B’s trust. J.B. did not know C.B. personally but understood that she was defendant’s girlfriend. Shaffer told J.B. that C.B. had accused defendant of rape, but C.B. was lying. Shaffer wanted J.B. to write a knowledge report so C.B. could be sanctioned. J.B. refused. In 2016, C.B. reached out to J.B. through Twitter. Careful not to violate her nondisclosure agreement, J.B. indirectly 11 suggested to C.B. that the same thing had happened to her. C.B. told J.B. about N.T., whom J.B. did not know. LAPD Detectives Esther Myape2 and Villegas interviewed J.B. on January 26, 2017. That interview was recorded and played for the jury. J.B. and N.T. first spoke in the summer of 2017. They did not discuss the details of what defendant had done to them but talked about stalking and harassment they were both experiencing at the time. They also discussed the status of the ongoing criminal investigation. In 2019, J.B., C.B., and N.T. sued defendant; Scientology; and David Miscavige, the leader of the Church of Scientology, seeking civil damages for harassment and stalking. II. N.T.’s testimony N.T. became acquainted with defendant through Scientology’s Celebrity Centre in 1999 or 2000. In 2003, N.T. lived with her friend Ilaria Urbinati, who was also defendant’s friend. One night in 2003, N.T. and Urbinati met defendant and Watson at a bar. At the bar, defendant stared at N.T. intensely, making her feel nervous and a little flattered. At defendant’s request, N.T. gave him her phone number. A few days later, defendant texted N.T., telling her, “Come over now. You’re getting in the pool or Jacuzzi. You’re putting on a bathing suit. And you’re getting—you’re coming over right now.” N.T. declined but said defendant could take her on a date. Defendant kept texting, insisting that she come over. N.T. was confused but thought this might be defendant’s way of flirting. 2 Detective Myape was formerly known as Detective Reyes and is referred to in the trial transcript as Reyes. 12 Urbinati encouraged N.T. to go, telling her, “I know he really likes you. I’ve never seen him like that with a girl before.” N.T. was a little excited, nervous, and intrigued. She decided to go. N.T. suffered from social anxiety. Before she left for defendant’s, she had two or three sips of vodka to calm her nerves. Urbinati’s apartment was near defendant’s home, and N.T. walked over. Defendant greeted N.T. at his front door. No one else was present in the home. N.T. and defendant sat on a couch in his living room and talked for a while. Defendant then went into the kitchen to get her a drink. When he returned, he handed N.T. a glass of red wine. N.T. was nervous and did not want defendant to watch her drinking the wine. She tried to make conversation and asked defendant if he wanted to give her a tour of the house. Defendant said no and insisted she drink. N.T. had a few sips, “[n]ot two sips,” but “not ten.” N.T. and defendant walked around the first floor of the home and eventually entered the backyard, where there was a pool and a Jacuzzi. Defendant told N.T., “Take off your clothes now.” N.T. responded, “What?” She was giggling and said, “I’m not doing that. I’m not going in the pool.” Defendant insisted, saying, “Take your clothes off now or I’m going to take them off. Strip now. You’re getting in the water.” N.T. continued to refuse, but suddenly everything went black. Approximately 30 minutes had elapsed since N.T. started drinking the wine. N.T.’s clothing came off and she found herself in the Jacuzzi, but she had no memory of how that happened. She was in and out of consciousness and felt very tired. In the Jacuzzi, defendant kissed N.T., rubbed his fingers over her vagina, and penetrated her digitally. N.T. kept repeating “No, no, no. I don’t want—this is too much.” She felt “out of it” and “not present.” 13 Her body felt heavy, and her vision blacked out from time to time. N.T. had never before experienced these symptoms after consuming alcohol. N.T. did not remember getting out of the Jacuzzi, but once outside, defendant directed her to “[g]o inside and go get up in the shower now.” N.T.’s next memory was being in the shower with defendant. He kissed her “really heavily” while she was against the shower wall. N.T. kept saying, “We cannot have sex.” “We cannot have intercourse. Do you understand me?” Defendant ignored her and digitally penetrated her. When defendant initiated sexual intercourse, N.T. said, “What are you doing? No. I told you no.” She used two hands in an effort to push defendant away. N.T.’s vision continued to fail, and her perception was impaired. When N.T. exited the shower, defendant directed her to “[g]o get in my bed.” Defendant kissed her “really heavily” on the bed. N.T. felt “limp-ish, not fully present and engaged.” She pleaded with defendant, saying, “[W]e can’t—cannot have sex. Do you understand me? We can’t have sex. We can’t do that.” Defendant said, “Yeah, okay,” but ignored her and began digitally penetrating her again. Defendant then suddenly said, “Okay. That’s it.” He flipped N.T. over so that she was on her hands and knees and penetrated her with his penis, “really, really hard. Like, it hurt.” When defendant penetrated her, N.T. looked behind her at defendant and said, “I told you we can’t do that. Oh, my God. What are you doing? I said we can’t do that.” N.T. found the experience “really painful” and started to vomit in her mouth. Defendant did not stop, and N.T. said, “Okay. If you’re not going to listen to me can you just put a condom on?” N.T. explained that she was not consenting to sex but was simply 14 trying to protect herself from a sexually transmitted disease or pregnancy. Defendant held N.T. down by the hips, flipped her onto her back and continued to thrust forcefully into her. Afterward, N.T. and defendant talked. When asked why she stayed to talk to defendant, N.T. replied, “I don’t know. I was just trying to make what happened into something less upsetting. [¶] … [¶] … A protective mechanism for myself. I didn’t want to think of it as what it was because this was someone, that I knew in my circle of friends…. [¶] I’m in this church with him. If I’m not even allowed, in this church, to have thoughts like that about other members[,] [i]f I were to think that I was raped, I would have lost my whole community.” N.T. explained that before the encounter with defendant, she was raped by a former boyfriend. The boyfriend was also a Scientologist, and N.T. reported the rape to the Celebrity Centre’s chaplain. The chaplain showed N.T. policies prohibiting her from going to the police or taking legal action against a member in good standing. Doing so would be a suppressive act, which could cause N.T. to lose her family and friends. N.T. admitted calling defendant a few days after the rape and telling him, “I thought you were going to call me. … I thought you liked me, and I like you.” Defendant said, “No. I’m busy. Bye.” N.T. explained that contacting defendant was her attempt to “recontextualize and reframe this entire incident for myself so I could survive it.” She thought, “Okay, maybe if he would ha[ve] done that to me, there must be a reason for it. He must like me and want to date me.” After speaking to defendant on the phone, N.T. called her mother. She did not say that defendant raped her but told her mother that something “really bad” had happened, that 15 defendant was “really rough,” and that it hurt so much she vomited in her mouth. N.T.’s mother confirmed that N.T. called her a few days after the rape. N.T.’s mother testified that N.T. said defendant “was coming at her from behind, very forcefully, like a jackhammer and that it hurt and that she asked him to stop and—but he didn’t. And that she threw up in her mouth.” A few weeks later, N.T. told her friend Jordan Ladd about defendant. N.T. did not use the word “rape,” but said, “[h]e was coming at me like a jackhammer.” Ladd testified that in late 2003 N.T. said she had sex with defendant and begged him to stop but he would not. Ladd’s impression was that the incident was “violent in nature.” Ladd recalled that during their conversation, N.T. was shaking, nervous, stumbling over her words, and experiencing difficulty breathing. N.T. did not use the word rape; but when Ladd did, N.T. panicked and begged Ladd not to tell anyone. Ladd and N.T. did not speak again until 2017 when Ladd saw a headline about the rape allegations. She texted N.T., who immediately called Ladd and asked, “Why are you texting me this message?” Ladd responded, “Because I remember what you told me.” N.T. did not remember having disclosed the rape to Ladd. At N.T.’s request, Ladd contacted law enforcement. N.T. also told her friend and fellow Scientologist Rachel Smith that she had sex with defendant that was “very, very forceful and jarring, painful.” Smith testified that in late 2003 N.T. told her defendant had raped her. N.T. did not use the term “rape,” Smith explained, because that “would be victim mentality, and that’s unacceptable.” N.T. told Smith defendant was very demanding about coming over to his home; N.T. found that intriguing and strange but went; things started happening and 16 N.T. begged defendant not to have sex. Smith recounted that N.T. said, “‘Please. Let’s not have sex,’ over and over again. And the next thing she knew, he did it anyway, violently, like a jackhammer.” Smith said that N.T.’s description of the rape “really stood out to me. It just stuck with me.” Smith and N.T. became estranged in late 2003 because Swartz ordered Smith to stop being friends with her. Smith called N.T. in late 2017 when she learned N.T. was one of the victims in defendant’s criminal investigation. In the fall of 2016, C.B. contacted N.T. via Instagram direct messaging. C.B.’s message was cryptic and said, “I would like to talk to you about something that I heard happened to you happened to me, too.” N.T. and C.B. subsequently spoke by telephone. They talked about having both been raped by defendant but did not discuss details. C.B. asked N.T. if she would speak to law enforcement. N.T. was reluctant to do so, because it was against Scientology policy, but she eventually spoke to Detectives Myape and Villegas in January 2017. N.T. told Detective Myape that maybe defendant had “roofie’d me.” N.T. also told the district attorney in 2017 that defendant may have drugged her: “I don’t know for sure that he drugged me. I can’t prove it, you know. But all of the feelings out of it and pieces of it that I’m missing. All of that contributes to you feeling, okay, it probably was?” III. C.B.’s testimony C.B. dated and lived with defendant for six years, starting in 1996. She became a Scientologist and started taking courses in January 1997. After a year together, defendant became “[v]ery controlling, insulting, very aggressive sexually.” Defendant was 17 “really rough” and sometimes became physically violent or abusive if C.B. refused to have sex or angered him. In December 2001, C.B. had two glasses of wine at dinner with defendant and did not remember anything until the following afternoon. She woke up naked in bed and in pain. Her anus was torn and bleeding. She found defendant, told him she was in pain, and asked what happened. Defendant laughed and said he had anal sex with her. C.B. had refused to have anal sex with defendant in the past. C.B. asked if she was unconscious during sex, and defendant said “Yeah.” The incident caused C.B. to end the relationship. C.B. reported the incident to her Scientology ethics officer, Miranda Scoggins. Scoggins told her rape could not occur in a relationship and the term rape should not be used. Scoggins told C.B. she had “done something to pull it in,” and put C.B. on an ethics program for two months. Scoggins showed C.B. Scientology policies that prohibited her from reporting defendant to law enforcement. One policy stated that reporting a celebrity to law enforcement would be investigated as a “high crime.” C.B. left Scientology in 2016 after learning defendant had raped other women. She found out about J.B. and N.T. through mutual friends and contacted them to let them know she believed them. They did not discuss any details of their respective rapes. C.B. felt responsible for what happened to J.B. and N.T. and filed a police report. Almost immediately thereafter, C.B. and her family became subject to harassment and stalking. She is a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit to stop the harassment. 18 IV. Kathleen J.’s testimony Kathleen testified as an Evidence Code section 1108 witness.3 Kathleen testified that she worked as an assistant prop master on a film in Toronto. In July 2000, she attended a wrap party for the film with her husband and two stepdaughters at the hotel where they were staying. She did not drink any alcohol. Around midnight, they went to another party on another floor of the hotel. Kathleen sat on a couch while her husband smoked on a balcony. Defendant sat next to her and gave her a short glass containing vodka and orange juice, which she drank. Kathleen had been introduced to defendant, but she did not recognize him at that time and did not know his last name. Within 15 to 20 minutes after consuming the drink, Kathleen started feeling lightheaded and nauseated. She said she needed to go to the restroom, and defendant offered to show her its location. Kathleen’s memory was impaired from the time she stood up from the couch. She was unsteady on her feet. She opened a door but discovered it was a bedroom. She said, “It’s not the bathroom,” and turned to leave. Defendant guided her into the bedroom and the next thing she knew, she was on her back on the bed. She could not get up and could not use her arms or motor skills. Her mouth felt numb. She tried to speak but could not. Defendant had forced sexual intercourse with her. Kathleen then blacked out. The next thing Kathleen remembered was walking down the hotel hallway, holding her shoes. It was about 6:15 a.m., and 3 Evidence Code section 1108 “allows, when proper, evidence of prior uncharged sexual offenses to prove propensity.” (People v. Villatoro (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1152, 1160.) 19 she did not know where she was. A door opened, and her stepdaughter appeared. Kathleen did not say anything although she felt pain in her vagina and anus. She found her hotel room and undressed there. There was blood on her underwear and Kathleen threw them out. Her husband was asleep in bed. Kathleen got into bed and cried. She did not disclose the rape to her husband or to anyone else at the time. Kathleen and her family went home the following morning. Kathleen felt ashamed. The symptoms she had felt the previous night were not consistent with the amount of alcohol she had consumed. She had never before experienced such symptoms. In December 2000, Kathleen and her husband were watching a movie when she recognized defendant in the film. She broke down crying and had a panic attack. Kathleen told her husband what happened with defendant on the night of the wrap party. She did not report the rape to police because she thought it was too late. In 2021, Kathleen learned that others had accused defendant of rape. She contacted C.B. Although they did not share any details, Kathleen said the same thing had happened to her. C.B. encouraged her to contact law enforcement. Kathleen reported the rape to the Toronto police and gave a recorded interview. Before speaking to the Toronto police, Kathleen was contacted by a journalist. She told the journalist about the incident with defendant, and the journalist published an article on the Internet.4 Kathleen asked the journalist to take the article down, but he refused. 4 The parties stipulated that Kathleen made certain statements to the reporter that were inconsistent with her trial 20 V. Expert testimony A. Expert testimony on rape trauma Barbara Ziv, a forensic psychiatrist who specializes in sexual assault, testified that in the majority of cases where a victim is sexually assaulted by someone the victim knows, the victim and perpetrator will have subsequent contact with each other and may even develop a consensual sexual relationship. Women victims of a known offender often blame themselves, believing they did something to cause the sexual assault. Most women prefer to forget about the assault, particularly with a known perpetrator with whom they have friends or colleagues in common. Ziv testified that victims of a known rapist almost always remain with the offender immediately after the rape instead of leaving. The victims stay because they are confused, depleted, intoxicated, or humiliated, or because they hope the perpetrator will apologize or make things better. The majority of sexual assaults go unreported. When victims do report, they often do so in a piecemeal manner. Trauma affects the victim’s memory because the victim focuses on critical information. The victim’s memory concerning important details can be impaired if a date rape drug was used. These drugs include GHB, an odorless substance that becomes testimony: (1) She remembered that it was defendant who chatted her up and offered her a drink; the next thing she remembered was waking up in a hotel room in terrible pain. (2) When her husband asked her why she broke down, she could not tell him, but she did years later. (3) She said defendant and possibly others had raped her. (4) Gerard Butler invited her and others to his suite. 21 undetectable in the victim’s system after 30 to 90 minutes. Date rape drugs also impair the victim’s motor functioning and judgment. B. Expert testimony on date rape drugs Forensic toxicologist Jennifer Ferencz testified that between 2000 and 2005, the most common date rape drugs besides alcohol included GHB, Rohypnol, and ketamine. GHB is odorless and colorless and is easy to mix into a drink undetected. When ingested in low doses, it causes euphoric and relaxed feelings. In higher doses, GHB can cause nausea, vomiting, lack of muscle control, drowsiness, and dizziness. The drug takes effect within 10 to 20 minutes after ingestion and can remain effective for six hours. Rohypnol is a prescription sleep drug. It takes effect within 20 to 30 minutes after being ingested and impairs muscle control. Amnesia is a side effect of the drug. GHB or Rohypnol taken together with alcohol causes greater impairment and sedation than taking either drug alone. Ferencz opined, based on hypothetical facts that matched the victims’ experiences, that the victims’ symptoms were inconsistent with the amount of alcohol they consumed. C. Expert testimony on Scientology Claire Headley testified as a Scientology expert. Her testimony is discussed in part VI of the Discussion. DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL Defendant contends his convictions should be reversed for the following reasons: I. The 10-year statute of limitations period prescribed by former section 803 (now section 801.1, subdivision (b)) barred defendant’s prosecution for forcible rape. 22  II. Denying defendant’s request for judicial notice of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.3 violated his federal and state Constitutional rights to confrontation and due process. III. Admitting opinion testimony by Detective Myape that communications among the victims did not contaminate the case and precluding defendant from cross-examining Myape as to whether the victims were truthful violated defendant’s right to a fair trial. IV. Quashing subpoenas seeking the victims’ communications with each other violated defendant’s state and federal constitutional rights to a fair trial and to present a defense. V. Denying defendant’s request for a continuance and quashing a subpoena seeking information from Evidence Code section 1108 witness Kathleen violated defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel. VI. Admitting Scientology evidence for the truth of the matter violated state and federal law, and the trial court exhibited hostility toward Scientology. VII. Excluding defense evidence impeaching the victims’ harassment claims violated defendant’s rights to confrontation and to present a defense. VIII. Delay in prosecuting count 1 violated defendant’s rights to due process and a fair trial. IX. Precluding defense evidence that J.B. was intoxicated when she arrived at defendant’s home violated defendant’s state and federal rights to confrontation and a fair trial. X. Cumu