In re J.R. CA3

Opinion

Filed 8/19/26 In re J.R. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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)

In re J.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C104368 Law.

(Super. Ct. No. JV141974)

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.R., Defendant and Appellant.

Minor J.R. appeals from a juvenile court judgment finding he violated Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a) five times. He contends two of the counts are not supported by substantial evidence. We conclude substantial evidence supports all five violations.

BACKGROUND

At least three times between May 5, 2020 and May 5, 2021, minor approached the victim, who was sleeping on the couch in the living room of the house in which they both lived, pulled down his pants, placed his penis in the victim’s mouth, and moved it back and forth until she awoke. Minor also touched the victim’s breasts during these incidents. During the same time frame, minor also approached the victim while she was sleeping on her stomach in her bedroom, touched her breasts and buttocks, and placed his penis in her mouth and in her anus.

2

In March of 2021, when the victim returned to school in person after “distance learning” due to the COVID-19 pandemic, her principal noticed that she began wearing her hood up and acting very withdrawn, stopped playing with friends and talking, and would sometimes hide in the bathroom.

On August 25, 2021, an emergency response social worker from the Department of Child Protective Services (CPS) went to minor’s house after his cousin, who also lived in the house, reported to a counselor that the minor had sexually assaulted the victim. The victim told the social worker that, in the past month, minor had put his penis into her vagina and anus approximately five times and had also put other objects in her vagina and anus. Minor would come into her bedroom late at night or early in the morning when no one else was awake, and the victim was forced to stay up all night to make sure that minor would not touch her because she was worried she would get pregnant. The mother of both the victim and minor (mother) appeared angry at the victim for what she had told the social worker, and the victim started crying when her mother spoke to the social worker. The victim stated that she had not told mother about the sexual assaults, but she had told her cousin and uncle.

The social worker developed a safety plan, under which mother agreed that the victim would sleep in mother’s bedroom pending an investigation, minor would sleep in the trailer behind the house, mother would not leave the children unsupervised by an adult, and mother would take the victim to a clinic for an evidentiary examination. Five days later, mother took the victim for the examination at the clinic. The examination showed no evidence of trauma, which was a typical result and did not rule out the victim suffering abuse because children’s tissues are very elastic and they heal quickly.

In November 2021, the social worker made an announced visit to the victim’s school and learned that mother had been allowing her to sleep in her own bedroom instead of in mother’s bedroom and that mother had been working overnight rather than supervising minor and the victim. Mother eventually agreed to a meeting with CPS but

3

would not agree to any changes to the safety plan because she was angry and she felt like there was nothing to be concerned about. In February 2022, mother informed the principal of the victim’s school that CPS had imposed a safety plan due to inappropriate interactions between minor and the victim and that the plan required minor to not sleep in the house.

In May 2022, the victim had missed approximately one week of school, and when she returned, she was vomiting and told her principal that she had been vomiting every day for the past week but otherwise did not feel sick. The principal asked the victim if minor was living in the house, and the victim said yes. The principal called CPS. Later that day, the principal received a message from a counselor at the high school that minor and the cousin attended, after which the principal called the police. The victim told a police officer that, in April 2022, minor had come into her bedroom at night when she was asleep, and, when she woke up, he was standing with his exposed penis approximately six inches away from her face. The victim also told the officer that, two days prior, she had fallen asleep on the living room couch after school, and when she woke up, minor was standing with his exposed penis near her face. The victim stated that, during these two incidents, minor did not touch her.

When mother arrived at the school, she was confrontational and talked over the police officer and the social worker. She said that the cousin was unreliable and the victim was lying to get attention. Mother would not discuss a safety plan with the social worker, and, when the social worker handed her pamphlets about court proceedings, she threw the pamphlets out of the car and drove off quickly, almost running over the social worker’s feet.

Several days later, the victim participated in a forensic interview. During the interview, the victim stated that prior to October she was sleeping in the living room when the minor took off her shorts and underwear, laid on top of her, and put his penis in

4

her anus. The victim also told the interviewer that, in total, minor had put his penis in her anus more than five times while she was 11 years old.

In October 2022, the People filed a petition alleging that minor had violated California law, bringing him within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The petition alleged five counts using essentially the same language: “On or about and between May 05, 2021, and May 04, 2022, minor … did commit a felony namely: a violation of [s]ection 288[, subdivision] (a) of the Penal Code of the State of California, in that said minor did willfully, unlawfully, and lewdly commit a lewd and lascivious act upon and with the body and certain parts and members thereof of [the victim] (age 11 years), a child under the age of [14] years, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, and gratifying the lust, passions, and sexual desires of the said Minor and the said child.” (Underline omitted.)

The juvenile court held a jurisdictional hearing in February 2025. The victim and minor testified, as did their mother and ten other witnesses. During closing argument, the People argued that the victim “had to endure being sexually assaulted by her brother who she trusted more than five times. Clear from her testimony that there’s more than what is charged here that has happened to her.” The People concluded their argument, “[s]o the Petitioner is asking based on the evidence–I’ve tried to move quickly–that you find that the minor has violated five counts of Penal Code [s]ection 288[, subdivision] (a)(1).”

Minor’s counsel discussed the incidents from April and May 2022 in her closing argument, noting that the victim stated that minor did not touch her in those two incidents. In rebuttal, the People responded that they were “not asking this Court to find a [Penal Code section] 288 [, subdivision] (a)(1) based on [the victim]’s disclosure of the penis being put–[minor] pulling his penis out and exposing it to her, those incidents, because [minor’s counsel] is right. That’s not a touching. And we are not asking for a finding on those two counts. [¶] We are asking to find where actual contact from his

5

penis to her bottom happened more than one time as is corroborated in the SAFE interview.”

After the jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court ruled as follows: “The Court did have to carefully consider the demeanor of all the witnesses that testified in this matter because this was a situation where I had two different sets of information. [¶] And after hearing the evidence and the argument of counsel and considering the demeanor, the motives, and assessing the credibility of the witnesses, I do find that the People have proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt. And therefore I will find Counts One through Five which are all violations of Penal Code [section] 288[, subdivision] (a) to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. I therefore sustain the petition and find that the minor comes within the definition of [section] 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.”

At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court adjudged minor a ward of the court and placed him on probation. Minor filed a timely notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, minor contends that the juvenile court’s findings for two of the five counts are not supported by substantial evidence because the victim testified that minor did not touch her during the two incidents she described to the police officer in May 2022. We disagree.

When an “appeal challeng[es] the sufficiency of the evidence to support a juvenile court judgment sustaining the criminal allegations of a petition made under the provisions of section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, we must apply the same standard of review applicable to any claim by a criminal defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support a judgment of conviction on appeal. Under this standard, the critical inquiry is ‘whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citation.] An appellate court ‘must review the whole

6

record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence–that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value– such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (In re Ryan N. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1371.) Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the judgment means we must “presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. [Citation.] If the circumstances reasonably justify the trial court’s findings, reversal is not warranted merely because the circumstances might also be reasonably reconciled with a contrary finding.” (Id. at p. 1372.) “Moreover, we must be ever mindful of the fact that it is the exclusive province of the trier of fact to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends…. Thus, in an appeal from a juvenile criminal as in any other criminal appeal, we are in no position to weigh any conflicts or disputes in the evidence. The juvenile trial court was the trier of fact and the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses; we are not.” (Id. at pp. 1372-1373.)

Under this deferential standard, we conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding for each of the five counts of committing a lewd and lascivious act upon the body of a child under 14 years of age. In August 2021, the victim told a social worker that, in the past month, minor had put his penis into her vagina and anus approximately five times and had also put other objects in her vagina and anus. At the forensic interview, the victim told the interviewer that, in total, minor had put his penis in her anus more than five times while she was 11 years old. And, at the jurisdictional hearing, minor testified that, when she was 11 years old, minor put his penis in her anus five times. The juvenile court credited this testimony, and we may not second guess its decision.

Minor tries to emphasize two incidents where no touching occurred, but we may not presume the juvenile court sustained any of the five counts based on those two

7

incidents because a violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a) requires at least constructive touching. (People v. Villagran (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 880, 890.) To the contrary, we must presume the juvenile court “ ‘ “[was] aware of and followed the applicable law.” ’ ” (In re Julian R. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 487, 499.) The victim testified numerous other times to at least five incidents of minor putting his penis in her anus, and that testimony is sufficient to sustain five convictions. Minor also tries to rely on inartful wording by the People during closing argument to establish that two counts are not supported by substantial evidence. In context, we conclude that when the prosecutor said, “we are not asking for a finding on those two counts,” the prosecutor meant “incidents” rather the counts. Indeed, both before and after this statement, the prosecutor asked the court to find beyond a reasonable doubt that minor had violated the law five times. We also note that this imprecise language used in closing argument has no bearing on whether the juvenile court’s findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Finally, in his reply brief, minor argues that the People wanted two counts dismissed. The record does not support this contention. Minor also argues in his reply that the victim was not a reliable witness. As explained above, we do not judge the credibility of witnesses on appeal, so this argument has no merit.

Because substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that minor committed five lewd and lascivious acts, we affirm the judgment.

8

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

\s\ KRAUSE, J.

We concur:

\s\ RENNER, Acting P. J.

\s\ BOULWARE EURIE, J.