People v. Stubbs CA3

Filed 10/30/26 P. v. Stubbs CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) THE PEOPLE, C100908 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62-171506A) v. STEPHEN MARK STUBBS et al., Defendants and Appellants. Defendants Stephen Mark Stubbs and Brandon Michael Frank sexually abused Frank’s nephew over the course of several years, beginning when he was six years old. A jury found them guilty of dozens of sex offenses, including forcible sodomy and aggravated sexual assault. The jury also found true multiple special circumstances, including that Stubbs and Frank engaged in tying or binding the victim and administered a controlled substance to him. The trial court sentenced Frank to 18 years eight months, plus four consecutive terms of life without parole and 135 years to life in prison. The court sentenced Stubbs to 11 years four months, plus four consecutive terms of life without parole and 450 years to life. In this appeal, defendants raise multiple challenges to their convictions and sentences. First, both defendants contend that there was insufficient evidence of force or duress to support their convictions for forcible sex offenses. We easily reject these claims, as there was overwhelming evidence of duress presented at trial. 1  Second, both defendants maintain that the prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence of penetration necessary to convict them of forcible sodomy. Again, we disagree because the record contains ample evidence that penetration occurred in each of the challenged counts. Third, Frank asserts various claims of error regarding the special circumstances for tying or binding a victim and administering a controlled substance. We conclude, contrary to Frank’s claim, that the tying or binding special circumstance applies to aiders and abettors like Frank, who assist their co-perpetrator in tying the victim. We further conclude that there was sufficient evidence that both the tying or binding and the administration of a controlled substance occurred “in the commission of” the underlying offenses, as required by the relevant statutes. Fourth, Frank challenges numerous aspects of the jury instructions. He claims that the instructions on the special circumstances erroneously led the jury to believe that it need not find that the tying or the administration of a controlled substance elevated the victim’s vulnerability. We discern no such requirement in the statute. We likewise reject Frank’s claim that the instructions allowed the jury to find only one of each of the special circumstances true but then apply those true findings to other counts in a course of conduct. Frank’s further claim that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on lesser included, nonforcible offenses also fails because there was no substantial evidence that Frank committed the lesser included, but not the greater, offenses. Frank also argues that he was entitled to an instruction under People v. Mayberry (1975) 15 Cal.3d 143 (Mayberry), which would have required the prosecution to prove that he did not actually and reasonably believe that the victim consented to the sexual acts. In this case, there was no proper basis for any such instruction. Fifth, Frank claims that his attorney rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel in several respects. Here, too, we disagree, for Frank has either 2 failed to show that his attorney’s asserted omissions reflected deficient performance or that any such omissions had any effect on the verdicts. Finally, both defendants challenge their sentences. Frank claims that there was no substantial evidence supporting two aggravating circumstances supporting the upper term on one of his convictions—the victim’s vulnerability and that the crime involved acts disclosing a high degree of callousness. We find in the record ample evidence of both. For his part, Stubbs maintains that the judgment in his case should be modified to strike several sentence enhancements under Penal Code section 667.6, subdivision (a) and that the abstract of judgment should be modified to strike several sentence enhancements under section 667.51, subdivision (a).1 The People concede these errors. We accept the concession and will modify the judgment to reflect the necessary corrections. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment as to both defendants. BACKGROUND Because defendants assert several challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, we set forth the evidence at trial bearing on those claims. In doing so, we refer to the victim as “John Doe” to protect his identity and refer to any family members, other than Frank, only by relation to Doe. I. In 2020, law enforcement searched a rural residence in Loomis after receiving a cyber tip from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The search uncovered electronic devices and storage containing images of child sexual abuse, including pictures and videos of Frank and Stubbs engaging in sexual acts with Doe. Law enforcement found child sex abuse materials involving other children as well. 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 3  Frank and Stubbs were arrested and charged with dozens of counts of child sexual abuse. The People charged both men with: one count of forcible sodomy with a child under 14 years old (§ 286, subd. (c)(2)(B); count four); 13 counts of forcible lewd acts on a child under 14 years old (§ 288, subd. (b)(1); counts five through eight, ten, twelve, fourteen, sixteen, eighteen, twenty, twenty-two, twenty-four, and twenty-six); four counts of aggravated sexual assault by sodomy by force or duress of a child under 14 years old (§ 269, subd. (a)(3); counts nine, nineteen, twenty-three, and twenty-five); five counts of aggravated sexual assault by oral copulation by force or duress of a child under 14 years old (§ 269, subd. (a)(4); counts eleven, thirteen, fifteen, seventeen, and twenty-one); and one count of possession of child pornography (§ 311.11, subd. (a); count twenty-eight). The People additionally charged Frank with one count of oral copulation of a child 10 years old or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (b); count one); two counts of lewd acts on a child under 14 years old (§ 288, subd. (a); counts two and three); and one count of forcible lewd acts on a child under 14 years old (§ 288, subd. (b)(1); count twenty-seven). Stubbs was also charged with one count of failing to register as a sex offender (§ 290, subd. (b); count twenty-nine). As to counts four through eight, the People alleged as special circumstances that both defendants engaged in tying or binding the victim (§ 667.61, subd. (e)(5)) and administered a controlled substance to the victim (§ 667.61, subd. (e)(6)). As to count twenty-eight, the People alleged that both defendants possessed more than 600 images depicting a person under 18 years old engaging in sexual conduct and more than 10 images depicting a prepubescent minor (§ 311.11, subd. (c)(1)). It was further alleged that Stubbs was a habitual sex offender and had suffered a prior conviction for violating section 288, subdivision (a), a serious or violent felony. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 667.51, subd. (a), 667.6, subd. (a), 667.61, subd. (d)(1), 667.71, 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).) The People also alleged multiple aggravating circumstances. 4  II. A multiple-day trial was held in January 2024. According to the testimony at trial, Doe was born in 2006. Frank was his uncle. Frank and Stubbs lived with Doe and his family off and on while Doe was growing up. Doe’s mother worked nights, so Frank frequently babysat Doe while she was at work. She trusted Frank with Doe because Frank was his uncle. Doe’s mother would take Doe and her other children to visit their grandmother in Loomis, where Frank also sometimes lived. Sometimes, Doe would visit without his mother when Frank was living there. Stubbs lived in a shed behind the Loomis house. Doe’s mother testified that when Doe was younger, he was “a tiny little thing,” and the family gave him a nickname based on his small size. Doe’s mother recalled that Doe’s behavior around Frank was different at one point in 2019, when Doe did not want to go to Loomis and did not want to be separated from her while he was there, to the point that she could not go to the bathroom without him. At trial, the prosecution presented videos and photographs that defendants created of their sexual abuse of Doe. Detective Jeff Martin explained that police categorized the videos and images they recovered in their investigation into different series. He also testified about what many of the videos depicted. In the first two series, the “homework series” and the “bathroom series,” Detective Martin testified that Doe was wearing an orange Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles shirt, leading the detective to believe that the two series were made around the same time in 2013, when Doe was six years old. Only Frank appeared in both series. In the “homework series,” Doe was doing homework on a bed. Frank was recording himself masturbating while moving around the room and trying to “coax [Doe] into doing something with him sexually.” Frank concluded by rubbing his penis against Doe from behind. A portion of the video in this series was played for the jury. 5  In the “bathroom series,” Frank was recording a video of himself with his penis out, urging Doe to perform oral sex on him and Doe complying. The camera was pointed at the bathroom mirror, showing Frank and Doe. Frank had his hand on the doorknob and was holding the door closed. The videos in this series were admitted into evidence, and portions were shown to the jury. The “binding series” consisted of several videos from September 2017 taken in the Loomis shed. Both defendants appeared in the videos, and Frank appeared to be controlling the camera with a computer. Stubbs, Frank, and Doe were nude in the videos. In one video, Doe’s ankles were bound together with white rope. He was on his back between Stubbs and Frank as Stubbs wrapped rope around Doe’s wrists. Stubbs then used the rope to hogtie Doe. Both defendants were masturbating. At one point, Frank heated up methamphetamine in a glass pipe and blew the smoke into Doe’s mouth. Stubbs was touching Doe’s penis and his own. A portion of the video was played for the jury. In a video later in this series, Doe was playing on a cell phone while the two defendants were masturbating and trying to touch him. In another video, Doe was seated on Frank’s lap, Frank was applying lubrication to himself and to Doe, and Frank was “reaching around and trying to open the boy’s legs.” Detective Martin opined that Frank was trying to have anal sex with Doe because Frank kept “working with lubrication in different ways and different positions.” Stubbs then crawled in front of Frank and Doe and helped open Doe’s legs while Frank applied lubrication, and Doe reacted negatively to the smell of the lotion. Doe said he wanted to “go to sleep” and “go inside the house to sleep.” Stubbs said, “Then you go to sleep … go take a walk.” Doe also said, “Ew … You have spit all over your hands. Ew.” Frank responded, “It’s coconut,” and Stubbs laughed. Doe said, “I want to get it off right now. I want to go back inside. … [¶] I’m just done. Ow.” Stubbs replied, “I haven’t even had a chance to play with you yet. That’s sad. I guess tomorrow morning’s a different day.” Doe said that he wanted to 6 take a shower, and Stubbs responded, “Take a shower.” Doe repeated that he wanted to take a shower, and Stubbs replied he needed to take one, too. Doe said, “No, no, no.” Stubbs asked if Doe wanted to “wear the jock strap again” or a dog collar; Stubbs then asked if he could walk Doe like a dog. Doe responded, “No, I just wanna go back inside and take a shower. … Please don’t. Are we gonna go inside?” Frank replied, “Yes!” The “storage series” of videos included two sets of videos and images taken in an empty storage unit, one in January 2018 and the other in April 2018. Detective Martin testified that the videos depicted “oral copulation” and Stubbs “sodomizing” Doe. In the first two videos from January 2018, Frank was filming and orally copulated Doe. In one video, defendants asked Doe if he “like[d] it like this,” and Doe responded, “Good. 10 out of 10.” Frank then asked Doe to “[c]ome give me a kiss” and “kiss it.” In another video, both defendants orally copulated Doe; later, Stubbs was behind Doe with his hands on Doe’s chest or groin. Another video showed Frank smoking from a methamphetamine pipe and blowing the smoke on Doe’s penis and face while orally copulating Doe. Stubbs asked Doe, “[h]ow do you like that,” and Doe replied, “[p]retty good.” Images also showed Doe orally copulating both defendants. In the April 2018 videos and images, the three were in the same location but were wearing different clothes. In the first video, Stubbs was behind Doe, who was nude, while Frank was recording. Stubbs pushed his hips towards Doe’s buttocks while holding Doe’s shoulders. In two videos, Doe was kneeling on a green blanket. In one, Frank rubbed his penis against Doe’s buttocks before ejaculating. Doe, who was a senior in high school at the time of trial, testified about the abuse. He could not remember when the touching started but said that Frank touched him “in ways that [he] did not like.” Doe could not remember a time in his life when Frank was there but was not trying to touch him. Doe recalled that Frank once showed him a video in which Frank was babysitting Doe and exposed himself. Frank showed him the video 7 as if he were “showing it off” or “flexing it,” and it made Doe uncomfortable. Frank told Doe never to tell anybody and that nobody could know. Doe further testified that when his family visited Loomis, he sometimes shared a room with Frank. Frank touched Doe’s “butt [and] penis” “[a]ny chance he could possibly get” while Doe was visiting. Frank would touch Doe with his hands or his penis and would touch Doe’s “butt” with his penis where Doe went “to the restroom.” Doe felt uncomfortable but did not think he was in a position to do anything about it. Doe said that Frank’s penis did not go “inside of [his] butt,” but that, in one instance in the bedroom (which, the prosecution later explained, was not charged) Frank did once “try to get it in [his] butt.” Doe said it hurt and made him “jolt[] up.” Afterwards, he felt like he “was in the wrong” because he “felt manipulated for not pleasing” Frank. Doe also recalled a time when Frank took him to an area about five minutes away from his grandmother’s house and “rubbed his penis between [Doe’s] butt” while Doe was bent over behind some bushes. Doe did not remember Frank penetrating his anus in this instance. Doe also remembered Frank and possibly Stubbs taking him to a house that was under construction where he thought they would touch his body or engage in oral copulation. Doe went with defendants to the construction site because he “just felt obligated to come along.” Both Stubbs and Frank would take Doe to the shed in Loomis and touch him there when he was about 12 or 13 years old, although Doe had difficulty remembering what happened. They would generally take him to the shed at night after everyone else had gone to sleep. Doe remembered feeling that defendants were much “bigger and more mature” than he was at the time. Doe further explained that the shed had multiple monitors with pictures of young boys around Doe’s age or younger. Doe recalled Frank taking a photo of Doe trying on underwear; Frank also showed Doe a video of Frank touching him. Doe was reluctant to try the underwear on, but Stubbs and Frank were very insistent that he do so. Stubbs 8 would take photos of Doe wearing the underwear. Frank also showed Doe a video Frank had previously taken in the bathroom of Doe on his knees orally copulating Frank. Once, when Doe was in the shed, Frank showed Doe the video. There were more than 10 instances where both defendants would orally copulate Doe in the shed. Both defendants also rubbed their penises between the cheeks of Doe’s buttocks. Doe did not think either ever penetrated his anus, although they did touch him where he would “go to the [bath]room.” Doe felt uncomfortable about this. He knew that pictures were taken of their conduct, but he had not seen any of them. The fact that there were pictures “just out there” made Doe feel uncomfortable and regretful; he was worried they would appear online. He also remembered Frank smoking something and blowing it into Doe’s mouth. Doe did not remember if the smoke made him feel different afterwards and did not know what was being smoked. After the nights in the shed, Doe would return to Frank’s room, where Frank would continue rubbing his penis between Doe’s buttocks. Doe also testified about the storage unit. He thought he was in fifth or sixth grade when defendants brought him there. There was a camera in the storage unit, but Frank said it was not active after Doe expressed concern about it. Frank would touch Doe’s penis. He was not sure if Stubbs touched him in the storage unit, but he believed it happened. Doe did not remember ever being tied up, although he remembered Frank once putting handcuffs on his thumbs at an apartment defendants lived in. Doe recalled multiple other acts of abuse beyond those for which defendants were charged, including acts of oral copulation and other sexual conduct by Frank and Stubbs in the bathroom, in the storage unit, at Doe’s grandmother’s house, and at defendants’ apartment. Frank was constantly touching Doe whenever he could. The last incident of abuse occurred in 2019. Doe testified that Frank tried to pull down Doe’s pants in the living room of his grandmother’s house and “play[] it off in a playful way.” Doe resisted and told him to stop, but Frank pulled Doe’s pants down to 9 his knees, exposing his penis. Doe recalled that it made him feel “[v]ery, very uncomfortable and out of place,” and he tried to distance himself from Frank thereafter. In response, Frank offered to give Doe a PlayStation if he would visit him at the Loomis house. At some point, Frank also gave Doe a Game Boy and some Pokémon cards. Doe said that, at first, he never told anyone about the abuse because he did not understand that anything was wrong; later, he did not tell anyone because he was embarrassed. He first disclosed the abuse when he was 13 years old, after Frank was arrested and police questioned him. Before Doe was questioned, he had hoped that “the issue would go away” and that he could put “it all behind [him].” He did not want to talk or think about it and wanted to stay in bed. Ultimately, he felt relieved after he talked about it because he had been holding everything in for so long. The prosecution also called to the stand a sexual assault response team nurse coordinator. She did not examine Doe but testified about the anatomy of the anal area. She explained that the anal opening is surrounded by small folds of tissue called perianal folds. The perianal folds would be visible on an external examination of a patient. A clinical psychologist testified about child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. He had not talked to any witnesses in the case, evaluated any of the parties, and did not know any specific details about the charged offenses. The psychologist explained that it is important to understand child sexual abuse in the context of the existing relationship the victim has with the perpetrator. Because the perpetrator may be a trusted adult that the victim cares about, the victim may be reluctant to disclose the abuse to protect the perpetrator. A perpetrator may not need to explicitly threaten a child to prevent the victim from disclosing the abuse. Younger children may not even understand that the abuse is wrongful or abusive; they may be embarrassed to acknowledge it. Children may also feel helpless in abusive situations because of the “power dynamics and the differences in age and development and sophistication.” 10  Because of the ongoing nature of such abuse, children often demonstrate learned helplessness and go “along with” the abuse. In some cases, children then feel as though they “contributed to what was going on, which could then even make it spiral even more to where they are unwilling to talk about what they’ve done.” In many cases, children who have been sexually abused will “appear stoic [and] show no outward displays of distress, even when talking about being sexually abused,” as a way of distancing themselves from the abuse. Because children do not have the same language abilities as adults, they may have difficulty recounting things like “time, sequence, order, [or] dates.” Moreover, human memory is fallible, and it can be difficult to remember the sequence of specific details about things that happened multiple times over the course of many months or years. III. Frank testified in his own defense. He stated that he had been molested by a family friend when he was younger and witnessed domestic violence between his parents. He was 19 years old when he met Stubbs, and they started living together when Frank was 20 or 21 years old. Over the course of the relationship, Stubbs would get angry with Frank and began experimenting in a “kinkier way” with sex that would cause Frank pain. Stubbs twice choked Frank until Frank passed out while they were under the influence of methamphetamine. Stubbs also forced Frank to have sex with other men while Stubbs recorded them. Frank admitted his conduct depicted in the “bathroom series” videos but said that it was done at Stubbs’s suggestion. Frank was worried that Stubbs would hurt him if he did not comply. He testified similarly about the “homework series,” saying that Stubbs wanted to see if Frank could get Doe to do more than he had done in the bathroom video. As to the acts depicted in the “binding series,” Frank said that Stubbs came up with the idea of showing Doe the earlier bathroom video to “see if [Doe] would be enticed to do anything.” Frank acknowledged that they abused Doe and videotaped the 11 abuse. Frank admitted abusing Doe when they were sharing a bed at the Loomis house in 2017. He remembered abusing Doe at a construction site near the house. Frank said that Stubbs also came up with the idea for the “storage series” and that defendants discussed using gifts, including a Game Boy and a PlayStation, to entice Doe to come to the storage unit. Frank told Doe’s mother that Doe wanted to go to the storage unit. Defendants took Doe there twice, and both visits were captured in the videos shown at trial. The storage unit was protected by a gate that required a code to open. Doe’s parents did not know the code to the gate. Frank acknowledged that he “indirectly” gave methamphetamine to Doe in the storage unit by blowing smoke on him. The second time that defendants abused Doe in the storage unit, Frank had received permission from Doe’s parents to take him there. He did not tell them what they would be doing. Regarding the April 2018 incidents in the storage unit, Frank claimed that he put his penis between Doe’s legs, but not in his anus. Frank said that when he and Stubbs took Doe to the storage unit, Doe agreed to go with them. When defendants went on a walk near the Loomis house, Frank testified that Doe likewise agreed to go with them and then agreed to take his pants off when Frank suggested it. In response to the prosecutor’s question whether he had tried to protect Doe, Frank said that he “asked [Doe] if he was okay, and then I asked him if he didn’t want to do it anymore. But – and I – I – it wouldn’t happen anymore.” The prosecutor followed up: “You asked an 11-year-old if it was okay if you molested him?” Frank responded that, “I asked if he was okay.” Frank later said, “I was hoping he would say no. That way it would stop.” Frank admitted that he told Doe not to tell anyone what they were doing to him because he did not want to get into trouble. IV. The jury found both defendants guilty of all counts and found true all of the special circumstance allegations. Defendants waived a jury trial on the aggravating circumstances, and Stubbs waived a jury trial as to the prior conviction allegations. The 12 trial court found the prior conviction allegations true and made findings as to the aggravating circumstances. The court sentenced Frank to an aggregate sentence of 18 years eight months, plus four consecutive terms of life without parole and 135 years to life. It sentenced Stubbs to an aggregate sentence of 11 years 4 months, plus four consecutive terms of life without parole and 450 years to life. Defendants filed timely notices of appeal. DISCUSSION Defendants assert multiple claims in this appeal. We begin with their challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting their convictions for forcible sex offenses and for sodomy. We next address Frank’s challenges to the special circumstances. We then discuss Frank’s various challenges to the jury instructions. Then, we address Frank’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Finally, we discuss both defendants’ challenges to their sentences. I. Both defendants challenge their convictions for forcible sex offenses on the ground that there was insufficient evidence of force or duress. Frank argues that there was insufficient evidence of this element as to counts four through twenty-seven, which alleged forcible lewd conduct (§ 288, subd. (b)(1)), forcible sodomy (§ 286, subd. (c)(2)(B)), and aggravated sexual assault involving forcible sodomy and oral copulation of a young child (§ 269, subd. (a)(3), (4).) These counts were based on acts occurring in the Loomis shed and the storage unit, and Frank’s pulling down of Doe’s pants in the living room at Doe’s grandmother’s house. Stubbs asserts a similar challenge to counts ten, twelve, eighteen, twenty, and twenty-four for forcible lewd conduct (§ 288, subd. (b)(1)), which were all based on acts in the storage unit. We reject both defendants’ claims because there was voluminous evidence that they committed all of the challenged offenses by means of duress. 13  A. Section 288, subdivision (b)(1) prohibits lewd or lascivious acts on a child under 14 years of age “by use of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person.” Section 286, subdivision (c)(2)(B) proscribes “an act of sodomy with another person who is under 14 years of age when the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person.” Under section 269, subdivision (a)(3), the offense of aggravated sexual assault includes sodomy proscribed by section 286, subdivision (c)(2). Under section 269, subdivision (a)(4), aggravated sexual assault also includes oral copulation in violation of section 287, subdivision (c)(2). Section 287, subdivision (c)(2)(B) forbids an “act of oral copulation upon a person who is under 14 years of age, when the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person.” (See generally People v. Leal (2004) 33 Cal.4th 999, 1004-1005.) “Duress” means “ ‘ “a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, hardship or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to (1) perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed or, (2) acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted.” ’ ” (People v. Soto (2011) 51 Cal.4th 229, 246 (Soto), italics omitted; see also People v. Thomas (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1063, 1072.) “ ‘[T]he very nature of duress is psychological coercion.’ ” (People v. Torres (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 513, 535.) To determine whether duress has been proven, the trier of fact must consider the totality of the circumstances, including the victim’s age, relationship to the defendant, relative size in relation to the defendant, the defendant’s use of physical control in response to the victim’s efforts to resist, threats to harm the victim, or warnings to the victim about disclosing the abuse. (People v. Martinez (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 178, 189; Thomas, at p. 1072.) “[D]uress is measured 14 by a purely objective standard … . [T]he focus must be on the defendant’s wrongful act, not the victim’s response to it.” (Soto, at p. 246.) “Force” under section 288, subdivision (b) requires force that is “ ‘substantially different from or substantially greater than that necessary to accomplish the lewd act itself.’ ” (Soto, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 242.) Under sections 269 and 286, this element requires “force sufficient to overcome the victim’s will.” (People v. Guido (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 566, 576; People v. Hale (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 961, 978.) “ ‘In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim, the reviewing court’s role is a limited one. “ ‘The proper test for determining a claim of insufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether, on the entire record, a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] On appeal, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.’ ” ’ [Citation.] ‘ “ ‘Although we must ensure the evidence is reasonable, credible, and of solid value, nonetheless it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts on which that determination depends.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Alvarez (2025) 18 Cal.5th 387, 470.) B. Evaluating the totality of the circumstances, we have little difficulty concluding that there was sufficient evidence of duress to support the verdicts on the challenged counts. Beginning with the victim’s age, relative size, and relationship to defendants, (People v. Martinez, supra, 105 Cal.App.5th at p. 189), Doe was only six years old when the abuse began, before he even understood that defendants’ conduct was wrongful. He was only 11 or 12 years old at the time of the challenged offenses—16 years younger than Frank and more than 40 years younger than Stubbs. The jury could also find that Doe was considerably smaller than both defendants. Frank and Stubbs were grown men, while Doe was a child and small for his age; Doe’s mother described him as a “tiny little 15 thing,” and his family gave him a nickname based on his size. (See People v. Pitmon (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 38, 50, disapproved on another ground in Soto, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 248, fn. 12 [“The disparity in physical size between an eight-year-old and an adult … contributes to a youngster’s sense of his relative physical vulnerability,” and that factor “bear[s] upon the susceptibility of a typical eight-year-old to intimidation by an adult”].) Moreover, Frank, and to a lesser extent Stubbs, occupied positions of trust in Doe’s life. Frank was Doe’s uncle, and Doe’s mother entrusted him to babysit Doe. (People v. Schulz (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 999, 1005 [upholding finding of duress where perpetrator was victim’s uncle and noting that “ ‘[w]here the defendant is a family member and the victim is young, ... the position of dominance and authority of the defendant and his continuous exploitation of the victim’ is relevant to the existence of duress”].) Although Stubbs was not related to Doe, both defendants intermittently lived with the family while Doe was growing up and were included in holiday celebrations. (See People v. Superior Court (Kneip) (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 235, 237-238 [reversing § 995 dismissal of § 288, subd. (b) charges because duress could be shown where the victim “frequently visited the home and played with defendant’s sons, and [the victim’s] mother was friends with defendant and defendant’s wife,” creating a “long-standing relationship of trust” between the defendant and victim].) There was also evidence that defendants physically dominated Doe to obtain his submission to their abuse. In one video, Stubbs hogtied Doe while masturbating, and in another, Frank blew methamphetamine smoke in Doe’s mouth. In another video in the same series, as Detective Martin described, Frank applied lubrication to himself, while both defendants tried to open Doe’s legs and while Doe did not want to be involved. At one point, Doe was sitting on Frank’s lap, and defendants physically flipped him around so he was facing Frank. Hogtying a child and manipulating his body plainly support a finding of duress. (People v. Hale, supra, 204 Cal.App.4th at p. 980 [finding of duress 16 supported by defendant’s “physical dominance to overcome [victim’s] resistance to molestation”]; People v. Schulz, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 1005 [“Physical control can create ‘duress’ without constituting ‘force’ ”].) Defendants also took steps to isolate Doe and otherwise pressure him to submit to their activities. Frank explicitly told Doe not to tell anyone about the abuse and said he did this because he did not want to get in trouble. (People v. Senior (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 765, 775) [“simple warning to a child not to report a molestation reasonably implies the child should not otherwise protest or resist the sexual imposition”].) Defendants also waited until nighttime when everyone else was asleep to abuse Doe or abused him in isolated locations, such as the storage unit, where others could not help him. Before the acts in the “storage series,” defendants also discussed using gifts to lure Doe to the storage unit, and Frank did, in fact, offer Doe gifts on more than one occasion. (People v. Torres, supra, 107 Cal.App.5th at p. 537 [finding duress where the defendant waited until the victim’s “adoptive parents were away” and then offered her drugs, allowing the defendant to “isolate her, make her dependent on him, and facilitate his advances”].) In one video in the shed, captured in the “binding series,” Doe repeatedly objected to defendants’ actions, saying he wanted to go back to the house and go to sleep, but defendants continued to press their demands for sexual acts. In the final instance of abuse in 2019, Frank overcame Doe’s efforts to physically and verbally resist and pulled down Doe’s pants. This voluminous evidence was more than sufficient for the jury to find that defendants committed all of the challenged offenses by means of duress. Defendants’ arguments to the contrary lack merit. Defendants maintain that they never made any explicit threat toward Doe or his family, but there was ample evidence for the jury to find that they used duress in committing their crimes even without deploying such express threats. (See People v. Thomas, supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 1072 [“The fact that the victim testifies the defendant did not use force or threats does not preclude a finding of duress”].) Defendants also claim there was insufficient evidence to 17 support the prosecution’s theory that they coerced Doe by impliedly threatening to disseminate videos of his abuse online. There was sufficient evidence of duress without any threat to share the videos, but, in any event, a reasonable jury could view defendants’ actions as an effort to use the videos as leverage over Doe. Frank admitted that he and Stubbs discussed showing Doe a video to coax him into additional sexual activities, and Frank showed Doe images at around the same time he told Doe not to tell anyone about the abuse. Doe also testified that Frank showed Doe a video in which Frank exposed himself around Doe, an act that Doe understood as a “flex[].” The jury could reasonably view these actions as further evidence of defendants’ coercive conduct. (See People v. Barton (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 496, 519 [“power differential” relevant consideration in assessing duress].) Stubbs maintains that Doe never testified that he felt intimidated by Stubbs. But as he acknowledges, “the legal definition of duress is objective in nature and not dependent on the response exhibited by a particular victim.” (Soto, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 246.) “Because duress is measured by a purely objective standard, a jury could find that the defendant used threats or intimidation to commit a lewd act without resolving how the victim subjectively perceived or responded to this behavior.” (Ibid.) Frank additionally argues that the People failed to marshal sufficient evidence that the forcible sodomy and aggravated sexual assaults were accomplished “ ‘against the victim’s will.’ ” As noted above, section 286, subdivision (c)(2)(B) prohibits “an act of sodomy with another person who is under 14 years of age when the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim.” Likewise, section 287, subdivision (c)(2)(B) forbids acts of oral copulation on a child under age 14, “when the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim.” In Frank’s view, the evidence showed Doe to be a willing participant and thus defendants’ acts were not against his will. We reject this claim, because the record in this case is replete with 18 evidence that Doe’s involvement in the activities was against his will. Among other things, the prosecution introduced a video from the “binding series,” detailed above, in which defendants cont