P. v. Haidl, Nachreiner and Spann















Filed 3/30/10 P. v. Haidl, Nachreiner and Spann CA4/3













NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS





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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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



FOURTH APPELLATE
DISTRICT



DIVISION THREE




>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GREGORY SCOTT HAIDL, KYLE JOSEPH NACHREINER, and KEITH JAMES SPANN, Defendants and Appellants.

G036852 (Super. Ct. No. 02HF0889) O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment
of the Superior Court
of Orange
County, Francisco P. Briseno, Judge. Affirmed.



Law Offices of Dennis A. Fischer, Dennis A.
Fischer and John M. Bishop for Defendant and Appellant Gregory Scott Haidl.

Brett
Harding Duxbury, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant Kyle Joseph Nachreiner.

Stephen M. Lathrop,
under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Keith
James Spann.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette,
Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General,
Kevin R. Vienna and Lise S. Jacobson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff
and Respondent.

* * *

Following a mistrial,
defendants Gregory Scott Haidl, Kyle Joseph Nachreiner, and Keith James Spann
again faced charges alleging assault by means of force likely to cause great
bodily injury and eight sexual offenses including one count of rape by
intoxication, one count of oral copulation by intoxication, and six counts of
sexual penetration with a foreign object by intoxication. This time the jury convicted defendants of
multiple counts of sexual penetration with a foreign object by intoxication
(Pen. Code, § 289, subd. (e)),^[1] and the trial court sentenced defendants to
the midterm of six years in prison. ^[2] On appeal, defendants seek reversal of their
convictions, claiming the trial court erroneously excluded evidence, erred in
handling jury questions during deliberations and in instructing the jury, and
erred in imposing a mandatory, lifetime sex offender registration requirement.^[3] Defendants' contentions are without merit,
and we therefore affirm the judgment.

I

FACTS

Jane
Doe, a 16-year-old, straight-A high school student, met Spann near the end of
her sophomore year in high school. Doe
and Spann learned through friends they shared a mutual attraction to each
other. They had their first sexual
experience together in Doe's parked car in a residential neighborhood near
Spann's home. Doe orally copulated Spann
and he digitally penetrated her. They
continued to see each other through June 2002.

During
the summer, Doe worked as a hostess at a restaurant and socialized with her
girlfriends on weekends. According to
Doe, she started consuming alcohol at the beginning of her freshman year, often
becoming intoxicated at parties on the weekend.
Doe testified she and her friends routinely lied to their parents about
their whereabouts so they could attend various parties.

On
June 30, Doe attended a weekend party with her girlfriends J.S., M.M., and
C.D., who was Haidl's girlfriend. Spann
and Haidl also attended the party. Doe
and several of her friends, including Spann, left the party for J.S.'s house,
where Doe and Spann retreated to an upstairs bedroom and had sexual
intercourse. M.M. testified Doe asked
her to enter the room and take a picture of Doe and Spann having sex. Doe also testified Spann held a video camera
while they were having intercourse, but she asked him to turn it off and
believed he complied with her request.

A
few days later, Doe made plans to spend the Fourth of July with C.D. and Haidl,
who invited Doe and her friends to his parents' house in Newport
Beach. Doe lied
to her parents about her Fourth of July plans, telling them she would spend the
night at a girlfriend's house so they would not expect her home until the
following day. Doe impersonated a
friend's mother in a telephone conversation, providing a false alibi so her
friend could attend Haidl's party.

According
to Doe, on the evening of July 4th, she drove her car to Haidl's house with
J.S., M.M., and C.D. When they arrived
around 8:00 or 9:00 p.m., Haidl and Nachreiner, whom Doe had not
previously met, were drinking alcohol and playing pool in the garage. Everyone except M.M. and J.S. consumed
alcohol that evening. Doe claimed that
when she first arrived, she took 10 â€