P. v. Renshaw
A jury convicted defendant Edward Che Renshaw as charged of four felony sex offenses against alleged victim C., and found he had substantial sexual contact with her and caused her great bodily injury in connection with two of the counts.[1] (Pen. Code, §§ 288, subd. (a) [lewd act with child under 14], 288.5, subd. (a) [continuous sexual abuse of child under 14], 288.7, subds. (a) [sodomy with child 10 or younger] & (b) [oral copulation or sexual penetration with child 10 or younger], 1203.066, subds. (a)(2) & (a)(8).) The trial court sentenced defendant to prison for 18 years, consecutive to a term of 40 years to life, and defendant timely appealed.
On appeal, defendant contends no substantial evidence supports count two because the victim was over 10 (but not yet 11) and the relevant statute requires that the victim be “10 years of age or younger.†(Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (a).) He also claims the trial court erred by permitting the People to introduce prejudicial uncharged act evidence showing he committed sexual offenses against other girls and young women. Finally, defendant contends the trial court should have granted his motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct.
As we explain, we find no error. Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Renshaw