People v. Ramirez CA3

Filed 10/23/26 P. v. Ramirez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) THE PEOPLE, C102962 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22FE008274) v. JUAN ALEJANDRO RAMIREZ, Defendant and Appellant. A jury found defendant Juan Alejandro Ramirez guilty of 18 of counts of lewd or lascivious acts upon or with a child who was under the age of 14 years, by use of “force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person,” under Penal Code section 288, subdivision (b)(1). The jury also found true all three alleged factors in aggravation under California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a): to wit, the victim was particularly vulnerable; the manner in which the crime was carried out indicates planning, sophistication, or professionalism; and the defendant took advantage of a position of trust or confidence to commit the offense. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(3), (8) & (11).) All citations to rules in this decision are to the California Rules of Court. The jury also found true that defendant had substantial sexual contact with a victim under the age of 14, within the meaning of Penal Code section 1203.066, subdivision (a)(8), on all but three of the alleged counts. The victim in all 1 counts was defendant’s stepdaughter, M., who was between the ages of 11 and 13 when defendant sexually abused her. The trial court imposed the maximum sentence under Penal Code section 288, subdivision (b)(1), of 10 years for each count, to be served consecutively, for an aggregate term of 180 years. On appeal, defendant raises three arguments. First, he argues the trial court improperly and prejudicially admitted expert testimony regarding child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (CSAAS). Second, he argues that the pattern jury instruction the court used to instruct the jury on the use of CSAAS evidence, CALCRIM No. 1193, improperly instructed the jury that it could consider CSAAS evidence to prove the truth of the charges. Finally, defendant argues his upper term sentence must be reversed and the middle term imposed because the trial court indicated it believed it would impose the midterm sentence until defendant asserted his innocence during the sentencing hearing. We affirm the judgment. FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS The Prosecution’s Evidence M.’s Testimony M. was born in late October 2008. Defendant began dating M.’s mother, R., when M. was between seven and eight. M. has a half-sister, A., through her mother who is about three years younger. Defendant began living with R., M., and A. before he married R., when M. was in about the fourth grade. When defendant started living with them, they would go places, like San Francisco as a family. M. had never been to San Francisco before. It made her happy to try new things. The whole family was trying to learn Thai and “Laos,” because defendant liked those languages. 2  Defendant also taught M. some cooking and housekeeping skills. At first, they were kind of like friends. M. felt she finally had a father figure in her life, which made her happy. M. did not know her biological father at the time. Defendant and R. married and had two children together who are approximately 11 and 9 years younger than M. Defendant was the disciplinarian in the home, and M. estimates she was disciplined about once or three times a week. There were a lot of rules. M. would get in trouble for minor things like talking when she was not supposed to, eating before defendant, or not wiping off the counter; and this made her afraid. Sometimes, when M. got in trouble, she would have to stand in a corner for three hours or be locked in a small closet. Standing that long made her legs hurt and the closet was scary. Her siblings faced these punishments too. Defendant would also hit M. with a bamboo stick, “bo staff,” or “nun chucks” as punishment. He had these items for martial arts. Child protective services (CPS) came to the home multiple times, but M. and her siblings were never removed. Defendant was teaching M. and A. martial arts. M. did not like that instead of using a dummy he would use her as a dummy and hit her. It hurt and she would have bruises. M. told defendant she did not want to serve as his dummy, but he would get mad. Defendant would use the tools for punishment if M. was not listening or was doing something she was not supposed to. Once she begged for something at the store after he said no, and she got hit with the bamboo stick when they got home. M. testified defendant hit her with these tools “[e]very day a week.” There was no saying “no” to defendant in the home. You had to listen to defendant or face punishment. M. felt the discipline was too harsh and inappropriate. 3  R. saw defendant disciplining M. and her siblings, but R. had no say. One time, R. said something to defendant about his discipline methods, but the methods continued because he did not listen. Defendant first began molesting M. around when she turned 11, about two years after he married R. The prosecutor noticed M. hesitated when he asked her when the abuse started, and she said that was because she does not remember the dates of the abuse, but she knew it was around her 11th birthday. The first incident happened on a day M. was grounded. She came home and did some chores and was writing sentences as part of her punishment. Defendant told M. to go to his and R.’s bedroom, where he massaged her back and shoulders. It was normal for defendant to massage M.’s back. He told her he was going to massage her, and he told her to lie down; so, she did. R. was not home and her siblings were in the living room. M. wondered why they could not do the massage in the living room, but she was afraid of getting in trouble and did not confront defendant about doing the massage in the bedroom. M. lay on the bed on her stomach, and defendant sat on her back during the massage. The door was shut. Defendant was wearing boxers, and she was clothed. It was normal for defendant to just wear boxers at home. Defendant put his hands under M. and squeezed her breasts. This was on top of her clothing. Neither of them said anything about him touching M.’s breasts, but she thought it was weird and not normal. M. did not try to get away for about two minutes, because defendant was strong and on her back, and she did not want to get hit for resisting. He did not say he was going to hit her, but she would get hit for minor things. She stopped it by saying she had to go finish the dishes and had homework. He said, “ ‘[j]ust go do them.’ ” She got up, closed the door, brushed it off, and did her homework and chores, then watched her siblings. 4  M. said nothing to R. after the incident, because defendant was around R. She did not tell anyone else what happened because she was afraid they would tell defendant or make fun of her. M. believes the second incident of sexual abuse happened about one month after the first. R. was at work. She believes her siblings were in the living room. She and defendant were in his bedroom. She does not remember how she got in the room. She thinks the door was shut, but she is not sure. Defendant was massaging her, and she fell asleep. M. woke up with no pants on. Defendant had his fingers inside of her vagina. She does not recall if she said anything. M. would try to move, but defendant’s fingers were inside her, and every time he would tighten his hand. He would tense his arm, and because he was too strong for her, she would not move. She was lying on her back, and he was on his side, and she thinks he only had his boxers on. She said stop, and she thinks defendant laughed, but she does not remember because “[i]t was just kind of blurry.” He didn’t say anything. She believes this went on for 15 to 30 minutes. When M. tried to move, defendant would tense up his arm and hold her in place. This happened every time he put his hand in her vagina. Defendant also kissed M. on the lips and told her if he kissed her with tongue it would be wrong. He then kissed her with tongue during some incident of sexual touching, but she does not remember when. When defendant removed his fingers, M. put her clothes on and went into the living room. M. did not tell other adults about this abuse. She didn’t really trust anyone. On cross- examination M. said she did not go to her mother, a trusted teacher at school, CPS, a police resource, or anyone. Defendant never threatened to do anything to M., her siblings, or R. if she told someone, and she admitted her fear that he would do something to her was in her mind. Two months after the vaginal touching, defendant added another form of sexual touching. This was another incident that started with a massage in his room and progressed to defendant putting his fingers in M.’s vagina. Defendant was lying next to 5 M. on the bed and had his fingers in her vagina. He then grabbed her hand and put it on his penis. She tried to resist, but he was too strong and yanked her hand. He had her stroke his penis by grabbing her hand and moving it up and down. He was holding the back of her hand. This ended when he ejaculated onto his boxers. Defendant kissed M. on the lips during this incident. Other incidents of sexual abuse occurred in defendant’s car. The car was a two- door and had dark tinted windows all around which prevented others seeing into the car. The first touching incident in the car happened when M. and defendant went to a laundromat in Davis. There were no other cars in the lot. It was nighttime. Defendant ordered M. to get in the back of the car. When M. said no and asked why she needed to get in back, defendant said, “ ‘[c]ause I said so.’ ” In the back, defendant pulled down M.’s underwear and put his tongue on her vagina. M. kept quiet and said nothing because she was afraid of what might happen if she said something. This was the first time defendant put his mouth on M.’s vagina. M. felt that the prior incidents were not too bad, but when he put his mouth on her vagina it had gone too far. Defendant made M. orally copulate him for the first time in the car in an empty lot near their apartment. He was teaching her to drive. She thinks they had just gone to the store. He grabbed the back of her head and pushed it down on his penis. She felt she could not choose to resist. She kind of resisted by tensing her head and neck, but he just shoved her head down more. He then moved her head up and down. He ejaculated outside of her mouth. She said this happened right after her 12th birthday. Defendant also forced M. to orally copulate him once in the car near their apartment a time when they had gone to get pizza and he was teaching her to drive. M. believes the last time defendant forced her to orally copulate him in the car was about one month before she left the defendant. Another incident occurred in the car when M. and defendant went to the “Foods Co.” or possibly a Walmart. M. had trouble remembering the specifics, saying it was 6 either the Walmart or Foods Co., suggesting there was an incident of sexual touching in the car outside each store. When the prosecutor tried to home in on the details of the Foods Co. incident, M. said, “[b]efore we went shopping, he did the same thing as usual, which is either I would, you know, masturbate him, or he would have me in the back and he would put his mouth on my vagina.” The prosecutor then referred her to her interview with a detective to refresh her recollection. She then testified that at the Foods Co. or FoodMaxx, defendant ordered her into the back of the car, and when she did not want to go, he yelled at her, and she felt she had no choice. So, she went in the back. He put a condom on and rubbed his penis into her stomach. That was all that happened in that incident. He wrapped the condom up and placed it on a space under the radio. They then went shopping. When the prosecutor suggested M. could have just gotten out of the car and ran away, M. said, “[y]eah, but I was too scared.” On cross, she said if she left the car defendant would have just dragged her back. In the middle of the time span during which defendant sexually abused M., he touched her vagina with his penis. This happened in defendant’s bedroom. Defendant “did the regular massage,” and M. fell asleep with her clothes on. When she woke up, she was lying naked on her back, and defendant was trying to put his penis in her vagina. When she testified, all M. could remember about defendant’s position is that he was “sitting below” her and trying to force his penis into her vagina. It hurt. Only the tip went in. He tried for about five minutes. M. had trouble recalling how the incident ended, and she could not remember if defendant wore a condom. She stated, “[i]t’s all a blur.” The prosecutor used a transcript of an interview M. gave with a detective closer to the time of the abuse, when M. agreed her memory would have been clearer, to refresh her recollection. She acknowledged she told the interviewer that during the incident her legs were on top of defendant’s shoulders. She had forgotten this detail by the time of the trial. After defendant stopped trying to force his penis into M.’s vagina, he had her 7 masturbate him until he ejaculated. This was the only time defendant tried to put his penis in M.’s vagina. M. testified that she would go with defendant to pick up his daughter in Stockton. On one trip, he made her watch anime porn on his phone. This was in the “middle” of the timeline of abuse. The last incident happened when M. was 13. One morning in the beginning of 2022—she guessed January—when R. was home, M. got up, brushed her teeth, and did some chores. She went to go to her room to get ready for school when defendant grabbed her and pulled her onto the couch. She wound up lying with her back against his stomach. He began rubbing her stomach under her shirt and then her breasts over a bra. A. was getting ready for school in the room she and M. shared, and R. was sleeping in her room. R. came in and yelled at defendant, asking what he was doing. Defendant pushed M. off the couch. M. went to the bathroom as defendant and R. yelled and argued. M. got ready for school and went to school when R. told her to. M. and R. texted throughout the day. They also had a phone call. M. eventually told R. some of what had been going on. M. reviewed and testified regarding some of the text messages from that day. R. wrote, “ ‘[M.], I need you to tell me what’s going on, because if I’m getting mad at your Paw for no reason, then I need you to tell me, and I’m not mad at you.... and I love you, and it’s my job to protect you; so please tell me the truth. I don’t want to make a decision without you telling me that everything is okay or not, and it’s okay to tell me.’ ” R. asked, “ ‘[s]o what’s going on?’ ” M. replied, “ ‘[h]e has been doing this since you worked at Ace. At first, he was, like, “I’ll give you a massage,” and he started to touch me and I felt uncomfortable. I was stupid and couldn’t bail out, but then he made me give him a blow job, then he would make me watch porn—anime porn, then I started to bail out only.’ ” When R. asked M. why she never told her about the abuse, M. responded, “ ‘I didn’t want to tell you because I was uncomfortable, and I don’t know.’ ” 8 M. later called R. on a lunch break and discussed details about what had been happening. M. felt a weight lifted from her shoulders but was nervous about telling R. She was afraid R. would get angry or yell at her. She had seen documentaries where parents got angry with their children and accused them of lying when they reported sexual abuse. M. admitted she told a detective that when the abuse started, she and defendant were not that close. She admitted it was fair to say she told the detective, “ ‘I don’t like him at all.’ ” She agreed it was fair to say she told the detective R.’s prior relationship had been abusive, and M. doesn’t like anyone who tries to get close to R. On cross-examination, M. said defendant was abusive towards R. She disagreed with the defense’s characterization that she did not like defendant at all before the sexual abuse, and stated she said she didn’t like him when she spoke to detectives because, “[t]hat was the time where I didn’t like him because I felt disgusted.” On redirect examination, M. explained she did not like defendant at the time of the interview, but she still did care for him. He was “kind of” a father figure to her. She didn’t love him, but he had a place in her heart. At some point, M. discovered defendant was cheating on R. after going through his phone. This made M. angry because she was close to R. She told R., who asked her to send screenshots. M. agreed that R. and defendant argued all the time. Later she clarified it was not all the time. R. had tried to leave defendant multiple times, but defendant always came looking for her. M. admitted she told a detective during the investigations that the abuse started in February 2021. She would have been 12 at that time. She then insisted she said it was after her 11th birthday. M. also admitted she never told the first police officer she spoke with or a detective who interviewed her about being hit with martial arts weapons. She reasoned this was because the point of the interviews was to talk about molestation. 9  M.’s testimony regarding the number of times defendant engaged in any specific form of lewd or lascivious conduct was not consistent. For example, when M. was asked how often defendant touched her vagina, she first said maybe twice a week. Then, when asked to estimate if it was more or less than 10 times, she said less than 10. Then, when the prosecutor explained to M. that if it happened twice a week over about two years, that would be a lot more than 10, she said she thought it was more than 10. She then said it happened about 15 times. On cross, she said it was three times. When defense counsel asked M. why she told a detective defendant touched her vagina with his fingers one time, she said it was because “that’s what I figure happened because some of them are a blur.” She characterized saying it happened one time was “an estimate.” When asked the next time—after the second incident of sexual touching where he touched her vagina—a sexual touching happened, M. said she did not remember, because it happened too many times. R.’s Testimony R. testified she began dating defendant in 2016, and they moved in together in 2016. They married in December 2017. He acted like a father figure to M. and A. When defendant and R. first married, he and M. got along really good and seemed like father and daughter. She characterized her relationship with M. as “really close” and believes M. would come to her with personal problems. Defendant put children in the corner or made them write sentences for discipline. She saw defendant hit M. with a stick used for martial arts one time; saw him use it on A. more than once; and saw him use nun chucks on A. a couple times, but not on M. The one time she saw him hit M. with the stick, it was because M. did not do the dishes, and R. stepped in. M. would be in the room when he hit A. with the tools. When she tried to talk to defendant about this, he said M. and A. needed to be disciplined. After R. 10 expressed she did not care for this type of discipline, it would stop for a while, but then he would do it when she was not there. During the marriage, defendant and R. would sometimes argue in front of the children. Defendant was physically abusive towards R. in front of the children at least once. M. told R. about seeing something on defendant’s phone that indicated he was seeing other women. R., defendant, and her four children moved into an apartment in February 2019. R. had various jobs when they lived in the apartment, including one for Ace Hardware, where she began working in September. Her hours at Ace were from 2 p.m. to 11 p.m. five days a week. When she worked, her children were home with defendant. She left her job at Ace Hardware in July 2021 and was then home full time. Defendant had a car with tinted windows all around, and defendant and M. frequently left to go somewhere in the car. R. said while they lived together, sometimes defendant was a good father, and sometimes he was abusive. On February 17, 2022, at around 7 a.m., defendant had just returned from work. He changed while R. lay on the bed. Defendant went into the living room and she expected him to come back to the bedroom, but he did not. After 10 minutes, R. had a weird feeling and got up and slowly left the room and went into the hallway. She saw defendant lying on the couch face up, with M. on top of him with her back facing his. M. was rubbing her fingers in defendant’s hair, and defendant was rubbing M.’s stomach under her clothing. M.’s shirt was pulled up to right under her breasts. R. said, “ ‘[w]hat the F is going on?’ ” Defendant threw M. off him and onto the floor, and M. ran to the bathroom. M. looked scared. Defendant followed them. He looked surprised. She locked the door to the bathroom and asked M. what was going on. M. did not say anything and just looked scared. Defendant banged on the door and said, “ ‘[s]he’s lying.’ ” 11 R. sent M. to school and went into her bedroom. Defendant followed her. She told him to leave. Eventually he left. As she and defendant went back and forth about him leaving, he kept telling her she had not seen anything. Later in the day she texted and had a phone call with M. Before their text exchange that day, M. had never told R. anything unusual was happening with defendant. R. said that M. was normally a happy kid. Before the incident, R. had never seen any inappropriate conduct between defendant and M. She did not notice a change in M.’s behavior during her marriage to defendant. R. took the kids to her mother’s. She contacted the police the next day. When R. spoke with the detective, she said part of the reason she left the house and wanted to get all the kids out was because defendant was abusive towards her. She had previously tried to leave defendant, and she would take him back because he promised to get better. He did not get better. R. called defendant with the detective present. She understood the call was being recorded. The recording was played for the jury and admitted into evidence. During the call, defendant claimed to be shocked by allegations that he sexually abused M. He questioned why R. was making such a big deal out of what she saw, and claimed he was just rocking M. like a baby. He said they were play fighting, she was poking him, and he picked her up like a baby. He said M. is a good liar sometimes, when she wants something. He said he was rubbing M. because M. has stomach problems. Detective Cynthia Bohrer’s Testimony and the Forensic Interview Detective Cynthia Bohrer was the lead investigator on defendant’s case. She arranged for a forensic interview of M. on February 28, 2022. The interview was played for the jury. While the forms of lewd or lascivious conduct described were largely consistent, there were some differences between M.’s description of the peripheral details of the 12 abuse as described in her trial testimony and as described in the interview. For example, M. described an instance when defendant forced her to orally copulate him as occurring in the bedroom, where at trial she testified about these incidents occurring in the car. With respect to the incident described during trial as likely at the Foods Co., during the interview M. referred to the FoodMaxx or Food 4 Less. M. also described defendant as forcefully pushing her into the back seat of the car after she said no to going to the back, when at trial she testified he got her in the back seat by yelling at her. When asked to provide some details about the assaults—like what grade she was in and how old her siblings were—she said she had trouble remembering because it was “a little blurry.” She mentioned how the first time he made her masturbate him it was blurry because she “just woke up from my blackout.” She believed the abuse moved from the bedroom to the car when her mother stopped working for Ace Hardware. Expert’s Testimony Dr. Tiffany Anderson is a psychologist. As part of her job duties, she works with children who have experienced sexual abuse and keeps up on the current research and issues regarding child sexual abuse. The trial court allowed her to testify as an expert about child sexual abuse and the effects of child sexual abuse on children. Dr. Anderson said CSAAS is relevant because it provides a convenient model for helping think about or conceptualize behaviors that are often seen when children have been sexually abused. She testified that when one looks at the behaviors of children and sexual abuse, some behaviors that may occur are counterintuitive to adults. She testified CSAAS is not used to “diagnose somebody with having been sexually abused.” She did not know any facts or details about the case. The first area Dr. Anderson addressed where behaviors may be counterintuitive was disclosure. She stated that some people expect a child to report abuse right away or 13 soon after it occurs, but many children do not tell right away. Some children wait weeks, months, or even years. She also testified that adults often expect that when a child does disclose, the child would be able to give a quite detailed account. But, in reality, sometimes when a child discloses, it may be unconvincing to the adult hearing the disclosure, because there is a lack of details, or the child shares some details in one instance but not another, or the child backtracks on something they did share. The research says this type of disclosure is not inconsistent with a child being abused. There are various reasons for incremental disclosure. One reason is dissociation. When a child was not paying attention to all the details in the moment, it may take time for things to come back to them. But as victims expose themselves by talking about the abuse, additional information will likely come up. Dr. Anderson testified that while it is possible for children to disdain or dislike their abusers, oftentimes the children have ambivalent feelings, or even loving feelings towards their perpetrators. Usually, the relationship is an ongoing one, and the caregiver is in a position of authority over the child. There are often positive parts to the relationship. The abuser may be responsible for the child’s financial well-being and put food on the table. Dr. Anderson testified that often when children experience sexual abuse, the people in their life are unaware that the abuse has occurred. Parents are often shocked and surprised when an allegation is made. “Children are quite good at, sort of, maintaining the status quo, and appearing as though everything is fine, even when the abuse is occurring in secret.” Dr. Anderson testified that even if the abuse is upsetting, hurtful, or distressing, a child may attempt to make their environment stay calm and appear as if nothing is wrong. They may take active steps to ensure the abuse is not found out, because of fears they have that something will happen if the abuse comes out. Children might worry about something bad happening to the perpetrator. They may worry about the person being removed and taken to jail, or about CPS getting involved. 14  Dr. Anderson discussed different reactions children who are being abused might have during the abuse. Some may try to fight back, cry out, or run away. But the most common response is a freeze response. Dr. Anderson testified about the concept of helplessness. In these abuse scenarios, the perpetrator is an adult who is bigger, stronger, and more powerful than the child. This child has inherent vulnerabilities. You cannot expect a child to ensure their own sexual safety in that dynamic. Sometimes when a child does try to stop the abuse—by fighting back, running away, or telling someone right away—and it continues to happen, the child will feel helpless. This is so because they tried to stop it and it did not work. They feel nothing they do will matter. This leads them to sometimes feel it is easier to just let the abuse happen. Dr. Anderson testified about the concept of accommodation, which is about coping. Children cope in a variety of ways. Acquiescing is a form of coping—just get through and past the abusive time. The most common form of coping is dissociation. Dissociation is the mental process where the brain disconnects and removes itself from the present moment. Children will say they blanked out or were numb. This makes it harder to remember specific details. They know the abuse is occurring; they’re just not focused on the tiny details. Dr. Anderson testified about the concept of secrecy, and how child sexual abuse occurs in secret. Some perpetrators use outward methods like threats or physical aggression, but many times that is not necessary. The child does not need outward methods to have a sense that bad things will happen if the abuse is discovered. Sometimes, the child may have seen their abuser be physically aggressive with someone else. For example, a mother’s boyfriend may have beaten up the mother. This can make the child fearful it will happen to them. Children may fear CPS involvement or negative consequences to the perpetrator. They may be worried they won’t be believed. They 15 may be afraid the information will spread to their family members or peers, which may cause them shame, fear, or guilt. In Dr. Anderson’s experience and in the research, it is not uncommon for children to keep sexual abuse a secret when it has been happening for multiple years. It happens frequently even when the perpetrator never tells the victim not to tell anyone. It is not uncommon to keep the secret even when the perpetrator has not demanded it. Dr. Anderson testified that, with respect to children’s memory in general, they’re not good with abstract things like periods of time, frequency, or dates. You are not likely to get an accurate answer if you ask a child how often the abuse occurred. It is a case-by- case basis as to if a child can remember specific details as opposed to others. She would not expect a child to remember every incidence of abuse that occurred. According to Dr. Anderson, when children talk about their abuse, most of them display a flat effect. Everybody reacts differently. There is not one cut-and-dried way a child who has been abused should respond. The Defense Evidence Defendant testified that none of the sexual abuse happened. Defendant’s mother testified the family lived with her before they moved into their apartment in 2019. She also testified about spending a lot of time around the family after they moved out. She described defendant as the primary caretaker for the children, with M. providing a lot to care for the two youngest children after they were born. She described R. as always in her bedroom when they lived together, taking little part in the care of the children. She described defendant as taking on the role of a father figure to M., treating M. and A. the same as his biological children. She testified that defendant left all his martial arts equipment at her house. She testified she never saw anything happen between defendant and M. that she felt was inappropriate. 16  Defendant’s younger sister testified. She described him as pretty chill and even- keeled. She testified he was never violent with her growing up, and he never touched her or did anything that made her uncomfortable. She testified she has never seen him do or say anything to his children or stepchildren that would make her feel uncomfortable. She said defendant and M. got along well. Defendant’s father also testified. He testified defendant, R., and the children lived with him for 10 months to a year. He too suggested defendant was the one responsible for parenting the children, and made M. do the cooking, cleaning, and diaper changing. He testified defendant was good with M. and A. and would discipline them if needed, but he never struck them. He has never seen defendant be inappropriate with or inappropriately touch children. DISCUSSION I CSAAS Testimony During motions in limine, the People asked to introduce expert CSAAS testimony. The People argued they anticipated that defense counsel would attack M.’s credibility and admission of CSAAS evidence would allow the People to rehabilitate her credibility. The People argued that the expert testimony would assist the People in dispelling common misconceptions the jury might have regarding how sexually abused children react to abuse. They said that the expert testimony would include testimony regarding delayed reporting, unconvincing disclosures, secrecy, helplessness, entrapment, and accommodation, all which they stated were present in the current case. The defense requested CSAAS evidence be excluded at trial. During oral argument on the motion, defense counsel stated that while he was aware that the California Supreme Court has given its approval for the admission of CSAAS evidence, “some courts are starting to recognize that CSAAS is nothing more 17 than junk science.” Defendant argued the “New Jersey Supreme Court, in 2012, issued an opinion barring the introduction of Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome in trials in that state,” without further citation. The defense also argued that when CSAAS was coined, “it may have been a situation where people were not aware that children may not necessarily disclose right away when the molestations … occur ... over the years, that perception has clearly changed,” considering high-profile cases like those of abuse in the Catholic church, in the Boy Scouts, and by Michael Jackson. The defense argued this was not a case where expert testimony was needed to explain something to the jury that an average person would not know. The trial court acknowledged that over the years it has become less likely that the average juror has not heard about, at a minimum, the concept of delayed notification. The trial court ruled, “I think that there’s still valuable information for a jury to hear, things like unconvincing disclosures and secrecy and the helplessness that someone could feel, and the accommodation issue, especially with somebody in the same home. But those are all things that can make it difficult for a child to come forward, and as long as it’s very generalized information, … and it’s probative, and I don’t think that there’s any particular prejudice to educating a jury, giving them more information about, in general, what children can go through, as long as it’s not specific to our case. [¶] So I will allow the testimony with those instructions in place.” The Law The governing standards regarding the admissibility of expert evidence and our review of a trial court’s decision to admit it “are well settled. (1) First, the decision of a trial court to admit expert testimony ‘will not be disturbed on appeal unless a manifest abuse of discretion is shown.’ (People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24, 39 [], and cases cited.) (2) Second, ‘the admissibility of expert opinion is a question of degree. The jury 18 need not be wholly ignorant of the subject matter of the opinion in order to justify its admission; if that were the test, little expert opinion testimony would ever be heard. Instead, the statute declares that even if the jury has some knowledge of the matter, expert opinion may be admitted whenever it would “assist” the jury. It will be excluded only when it would add nothing at all to the jury’s common fund of information, i.e., when “the subject of inquiry is one of such common knowledge that men of ordinary education could reach a conclusion as intelligently as the witness” ’ (People v. McDonald (1984) 37 Cal.3d 351, 367 []).” (McAlpin (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1289, 1299-1300 (McAlpin).) “Expert testimony on CSAAS has long been held admissible in California for the limited purposes of dispelling commonly held myths or misconceptions about child sexual abuse and aiding the jury in ‘evaluating the credibility of an alleged child victim of sexual abuse.’ (People v. Lapenias (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 162, 171 [] (Lapenias); see [McAlpin, supra,] 53 Cal.3d [at pp.] 1300–1301 []; People v. Bowker (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 385, 393–394 [] (Bowker).) CSAAS testimony is permitted ‘ “to explain the emotional antecedents of abused children’s seemingly self-impeaching behavior,” ’ such as delayed disclosure of the abuse. (McAlpin, at p. 1301; see Lapenias, at p. 172.)” (People v. Sedano (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 474, 479 (Sedano).) CSAAS testimony typically addresses five components of behavior: “secrecy, helplessness, accommodation, disclosure, and recantation.” (See People v. Mateo (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1063, 1069; Lapenias, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at p. 173.) There was no Abuse of Discretion Defendant asserts there is a “robust line of cases in other jurisdictions disapproving use of CSAAS evidence as inherently unreliable.” He argues “competing scientific studies on particular components shows the relevant expert community is not in accord, but in disagreement, meaning CSAAS is not so widely accepted that courts may permit its wholesale admission under Kelly/Frye.” He contends, the trial court abused its 19 discretion admitting the CSAAS testimony, apart from delayed disclosure, because it was “generally irrelevant such that i