Curtis Duhart v. P.L. Vasquez

Ninth Circuit

Curtis Duhart v. P.L. Vasquez

613 F. App'x 647

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 19, 2015

Docket13-55813

StatusUnpublished

This text of 613 F. App'x 647 (Curtis Duhart v. P.L. Vasquez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Curtis Duhart v. P.L. Vasquez, 613 F. App'x 647 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Curtis Duhart appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the denial of Du-hart’s habeas petition was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent, we affirm. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(l)-(2); Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 131 S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).

The state court did not unreasonably determine that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have concluded Duhart knew or reasonably should have known that Jane Doe had a developmental disability rendering her incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse with him. See CahPenal Code § 261(a)(1); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Dr. Edward Frey testified that Doe had a low IQ and mild mental retardation, making it difficult for Doe to verbalize her thoughts. Officers Douglas Loreman and Brian Wilson, and nurse Ann Rowney each testified that they quickly noticed Doe’s “flat,” emotionless expression on the evening of the incident. See, e.g., People v. Hillhouse, 109 Cal.App.4th 1612, 1623, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 261 (2003). Officers Loreman and Wilson, and nurse Rowney also testified that Doe had extreme difficulty answering basic questions and understanding common words.

Additionally, Doe’s teacher, Craig Golds-berry, testified that Doe would often come to school with an odor. Officer Sherry Vasilis, who spoke with Doe after the incident, confirmed that Doe had very poor hygiene and an overwhelming odor. Vicki Smith, the consumer service coordinator for the Inland Regional Center, testified that Doe needed regular assistance completing basic daily tasks.

Finally, Doe herself testified, giving the jury a firsthand opportunity to observe the extent and obviousness of her disability and to determine from its impression of her that it should have been obvious to Duhart, even though his encounter with Doe was brief, that she had a developmental disability that rendered her incapable of consent.

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM ***

Curtis Duhart appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the denial of Du-hart’s habeas petition was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent, we affirm. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(l)-(2); Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 131 S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).

The state court did not unreasonably determine that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have concluded Duhart knew or reasonably should have known that Jane Doe had a developmental disability rendering her incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse with him. See CahPenal Code § 261(a)(1); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Dr. Edward Frey testified that Doe had a low IQ and mild mental retardation, making it difficult for Doe to verbalize her thoughts. Officers Douglas Loreman and Brian Wilson, and nurse Ann Rowney each testified that they quickly noticed Doe’s “flat,” emotionless expression on the evening of the incident. See, e.g., People v. Hillhouse, 109 Cal.App.4th 1612, 1623, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 261 (2003). Officers Loreman and Wilson, and nurse Rowney also testified that Doe had extreme difficulty answering basic questions and understanding common words.

Additionally, Doe’s teacher, Craig Golds-berry, testified that Doe would often come to school with an odor. Officer Sherry Vasilis, who spoke with Doe after the incident, confirmed that Doe had very poor hygiene and an overwhelming odor. Vicki Smith, the consumer service coordinator for the Inland Regional Center, testified that Doe needed regular assistance completing basic daily tasks.

Finally, Doe herself testified, giving the jury a firsthand opportunity to observe the extent and obviousness of her disability and to determine from its impression of her that it should have been obvious to Duhart, even though his encounter with Doe was brief, that she had a developmental disability that rendered her incapable of consent.

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

613 F. App'x 647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curtis-duhart-v-pl-vasquez-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack