Filed 8/10/26 P. v. House CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D085659
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCD295694
v.
JOHN EDMUND HOUSE,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Kimberlee A. Lagotta, Judge. Affirmed.
Michael Christopher Sampson, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant
Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General, Donald W.
Ostertag and Sahar Karimi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
John Edmund House was charged in an amended information with
forcible oral copulation in violation of former Penal Code section 288a,
subdivision (c)(2).1 The charge included an allegation that he had kidnapped
the victim in the commission of the crime. (§§ 207, subd. (a), 667.61, subds.
(b), (c), (e)). The jury found House guilty and found true the kidnapping
1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
allegation. He was sentenced to 15 years to life. On appeal, House argues
that the evidence was insufficient to support the true finding as to
kidnapping. Resolving this matter by memorandum opinion (see generally
People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847), we conclude that substantial
evidence supported the jury’s true finding and affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Jane Doe, the victim, testified that late in the evening on August 22,
2001, she got off the bus in Pacific Beach on the way to her boyfriend’s house.
She walked up the sidewalk along Fanuel Street, which she described as a
street with “light traffic, light pedestrian traffic.” As she walked, she heard
someone following her, and then as she was about to cross an alleyway, she
was grabbed from behind and a hand was placed over her mouth. She felt
something poking her in the back. The person who grabbed her told her it
was a knife and instructed her not to scream, because if she did, he would
hurt her. He forced her to move forward into the alley, to a corner near a
wood fence and a garage. He ripped down her shirt and squeezed her
breasts, then told her to reach around and grab his penis. She complied. He
told her to undress and she removed her skirt. He then forced her down
further into the alley where it was “pretty sparsely lit” and with “no foot
traffic.” She testified that the alley location was “really dark, and nobody can
really see you in the alleyway.” He instructed her to kneel down and told her
to take his penis into her mouth, and she complied for approximately one
minute. He lost his erection. He then told her to get on her hands and knees,
and he whipped her buttocks three times. After she told him that it hurt and
tried to cover herself with her hands, he allowed her to rise and collect her
belongings. He took her identification and then directed her to a house with
a hose, where he told her to wash her hands and rinse her mouth out. He
2
instructed her to kneel down behind a hedge and count to 20, then he let her
go and ran away.
Doe ran to her boyfriend’s house and called the police. Later that
evening, she underwent a sexual assault examination, which included
swabbing her mouth and lips for DNA. At the time, DNA testing did not
identify a suspect, but in 2022, using more advanced DNA testing, the crime
lab identified House as a likely contributor to the DNA from Doe’s lips. A
DNA technical manager for the crime lab explained that it was three
quadrillion times more likely than not to get the results that they did if
House was a contributor to the DNA sample.
The jury convicted House of the single count and found true that he
committed a kidnapping in the commission of the offense. The court
sentenced House to 15 years to life.
DISCUSSION
House argues on appeal that there was insufficient evidence to support
the jury’s true finding that he had kidnapped the victim during the offense
because the evidence did not show that he moved the victim a substantial
distance or that the movement decreased the likelihood of detection or
increased the danger to the victim. We disagree.
The jury was instructed that in order to find true the allegation, it was
required to find that using force or fear, House moved Doe or made Doe
“move a substantial distance.” “Substantial distance” was defined as follows:
“Substantial distance means more than a slight or trivial
distance. In deciding whether the distance was substantial,
you must consider all the circumstances relating to the
movement. Thus, in addition to considering the actual
distance moved, you may also consider other factors such as
whether the distance the other person was moved was
beyond that merely incidental to the commission of Oral
Copulation by Force, whether the movement increased the
3
risk of physical or psychological harm, increased the danger
of a foreseeable escape attempt, or gave the attacker a
greater opportunity to commit additional crimes, or
decreased the likelihood of detection.”
We review the jury’s true finding for substantial evidence. (People
v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 468–469 (Hin).) In determining whether the
distance that a victim was moved was substantial, the jury is to consider the
totality of the circumstances, including the actual distance moved, “but also
such factors as whether that movement increased the risk of harm above that
which existed prior to the asportation, decreased the likelihood of detection,
and increased both the danger inherent in a victim’s foreseeable attempts to
escape and the attacker’s enhanced opportunity to commit additional crimes.”
(People v. Martinez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 225, 237.)
Here, Doe did not testify as to the precise distance that she was moved
from Fanuel Street into the alley, but her testimony clearly established that
her assailant forced her to move from a city street into the “really dark” alley,
and then further down into the alley, where he forced oral copulation. But
even if the actual distance that they moved could be considered a short
distance, the addition of the factors noted in Martinez support the jury’s
finding.
In Hin, the court analyzed the Martinez factors that are similar here:
“A rational trier of fact could have concluded that the
victims were moved a substantial distance based on the
factors articulated in Martinez. The movement to the
bottom of the hill increased the risk of harm to the victims
by isolating them from other park patrons in a more
secluded area where they were less visible to others.
Similarly, a rational finder of fact could have determined
that the darkness decreased the likelihood of detection and
enhanced defendants’ opportunity to commit additional
crimes.” (Hin, supra, 17 Cal.5th at pp. 469–470.)
4
So too here. The assailant forced Doe to move from Fanuel Street, a
street with light vehicle and pedestrian traffic, into a darkened alley – and
then further away from the street into the alley, where the offense occurred.
The darkened alley “was less visible to others” and “decreased the likelihood
of detection.”
House argues that because the alley contained entrances to residences,
it was “even more public” than Fanuel Street. But even if we considered that
an alley fronted in part by residences was somehow more “public” than a
public street, “[c]ourts have held that moving a victim to a more isolated open
area which is less visible to public view is sufficient.” (People v. Aguilar
(2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1044, 1049.) House speculates that moving Doe to
the front of two residential houses would have increased the chances of his
being caught, but nothing in the record supports such an inference. The
undisputed evidence demonstrated that the street was a public thoroughfare,
while the alley was dark and deserted.
DISPOSITION
Affirmed.
KELETY, J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.
BUCHANAN, J.
5