Filed 8/5/26 P. v. Ramos CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E085467
v. (Super.Ct.No. FWV22001621)
JOSE A. RAMOS, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Katrina West,
Judge. Affirmed.
James M. Crawford, 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, Christopher P. Beesley and Cobi
S. Furdek, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Jose A. Ramos was convicted of 20 counts of sexual
abuse of his two great-nieces, who were under the age of 10 when the abuse occurred.
Defendant claims on appeal that his involuntary and coerced confession made to the
police violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and should have been
excluded. His convictions should be reversed. We find that defendant’s statement was
properly admitted at trial.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of sexual intercourse/sodomy of
a child under the age of 10 (Pen. Code,1 § 288.7, subd. (a)); three counts of sexual
penetration/oral copulation with a child under the age of 10 (§ 288.7, subd. (b)); and 15
counts of committing lewd and lascivious acts with a child (§ 288, subd. (a)). These
crimes were all committed between November 1, 2017, and May 9, 2020. The jury also
found true the allegation that he committed the section 288, subdivision (a), offenses
against multiple victims within the meaning of sections 667.61 and 1203.066, subdivision
(a)(7). Defendant was sentenced to 470 years to life followed by a lifetime period of
parole.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
2
B. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. PEOPLE’S CASE-IN-CHIEF
a. Counts 1 through 16: Jane Doe
Jane Doe was born in May 2009. She was in the ninth grade at the time of trial.
She knew defendant as Pepa. He was her great-uncle on her mother’s side of the family.
In 2017, Jane and her family—her dad, younger sister Mary Doe, mom, and defendant—
moved to a house on Rosecrest Street in Fontana. She was in the fourth grade. The
house had three bedrooms upstairs. Defendant, Mary and Jane occupied the three
upstairs bedrooms and Jane’s parents stayed in a bedroom downstairs. There was one
bathroom upstairs that Mary, Jane and defendant shared.
Defendant babysat Mary and Jane a lot while their parents were working.
Defendant first touched Jane a couple of days after she turned nine or 10 years old. Jane
and Mary had been outside playing with water balloons. Jane came inside to call her
mother on defendant’s phone. While she was on the phone with her mother, she and
defendant were in his bedroom. He grabbed her from behind and hugged her. He also
rubbed his hands against her chest and legs. Jane went back outside and her mother
called her back. Defendant told Jane she could not say anything or he would go “to a
very bad place.”
The following day, defendant woke Jane up after her mother left for work. He
told her to go to his room and she complied. He told her to lie down on the bed, and he
lay down next to her. He told her to take off her shorts. He then “was rubbing through
my legs.” He asked her if it felt nice. He took her shirt off and rubbed her chest. She
3
stayed in his room until Mary woke up. She did not tell her mother because of the threat
from defendant that he would go to a bad place.
Defendant woke her up the next day and again made her go to his room and he
took her clothes off. This time he put his fingers inside of her vagina and moved them
around. She told him to stop because it hurt but he did not stop. She was scared and
eventually got up and left the room.
On a “Monday after school,” while she was still in the fourth grade, she was in the
kitchen when defendant came up behind her and hugged her. She asked him to move but
he refused. He told her to go to his room. Mary was still at school and her parents were
not home. He had her take her clothes off and again put his fingers in her vagina. This
same thing happened throughout that week and for “months.”
After a couple months of doing this to Jane, defendant woke her up and brought
her into his room. He asked if he could do something and she said, “yeah,” not knowing
what he was going to do. He then pulled down his pants and put his penis in her vagina.
He moved back and forth. This went on for a few minutes. Mary knocked on his door
and Jane put on her clothes. She believed that she was nine years old.
After this incident, there was a time that Jane was in defendant’s room and he had
his penis in her vagina, moving it back and forth. Jane’s clothes were off. Mary knocked
on the door to the room and defendant removed his penis from Jane’s vagina and let
Mary into the room. Defendant took off Mary’s clothes. He put her on the bed next to
Jane. He put his fingers inside of Mary’s vagina. He moved his hand. He also kissed
Mary. Mary started crying and Jane told defendant to stop. He refused. He only stopped
4
when their mother came home. They did not tell their mother because Jane was afraid of
defendant’s threat.
A few days later, defendant called Jane to his room and once again put his penis in
her vagina. He stopped touching her when she was in the fifth grade, which was about
one month prior to when she and her family moved out of the Fontana house and moved
to Texas. At this time, Jane’s parents were home all the time. Prior to that time,
defendant touched her almost every day.
Jane estimated that defendant touched her chest over 20 times while in the Fontana
house. He put his fingers in her vagina more than 10 times. He put his penis in her
vagina between two and five times. Jane only saw defendant touch Mary the one time.
At one point, Jane told him to leave Mary alone.
Jane told her cousin M.H. (Cousin) at a birthday party that defendant had been
touching her inappropriately and Cousin responded that he should not be doing that to
her. Jane asked Cousin not to tell anyone. Cousin was around eight years old at the time.
Jane told her aunt about one year after they moved to Texas and she told her mother the
same night.
Jane was interviewed at a children’s assessment center in Texas and also spoke
with Fontana Detective Lauren Baker. She believed that they moved to Texas in 2020.
She did not speak with defendant after they moved to Texas. Jane had told Detective
Baker that her clothes were on when Mary came into the bedroom.
Jane told her parents at some point while in the Fontana house that defendant had
hit her. This was prior to defendant touching Jane sexually. She said he hit her both to
5
punish her and “just because.” Her parents told defendant to stop hitting Jane. She never
told them that he was touching her inappropriately. She was absolutely sure that the
touching began after her ninth birthday even though she told Detective Baker it was after
her eighth birthday.
Mary told Jane that defendant touched her one other time. Jane did not tell Cousin
that defendant was touching Mary. She saw defendant ejaculate once.
b. Counts 17 through 20: Mary Doe
Mary Doe was born in January 2011. She was in the seventh grade at the time of
trial. She referred to defendant as her uncle and Pepa. She did not know what grade she
was in when they lived with defendant. Defendant oftentimes would babysit her and
Jane. Mary recalled that defendant put his hands on her.
Defendant put his hands on her private part, which she described as where she
went to the bathroom. She could not remember how old she was or how long they had
lived in the house with defendant. He touched her three times. They were in his
bedroom in the Fontana house when defendant touched her.
She also recalled that one time she was in the shower and he came into the shower
with her. He was naked. He touched her all over her body. She saw his penis but she
did not recall if he touched her with it. She did not recall him putting his penis into her
private part. She told defendant to stop but he did not. Defendant stopped touching her
when she moved to Texas with her family. Mary did not tell anyone until they moved to
Texas and Jane had already told their aunt.
6
Mary recalled talking to Detective Baker and someone in Texas about what
happened to her. Mary expressed that she was very uncomfortable talking about what
happened to her and that she could not remember everything. She told Detective Baker
that defendant never touched her with his penis. She never told her mother or father what
was happening to her while they lived in California. Mary did not recall defendant telling
her that she could not tell anyone about what he was doing to her. Mary, when asked by
Detective Baker whether defendant had touched her while Jane was in the room,
responded, “No. I don’t know.” At some point, Jane told Mary that she had also been
molested but she could not recall when. Mary told Detective Baker prior to trial that she
did not see defendant touch Jane while she was in the room, and he did not touch her with
his private part.
c. Additional Evidence
C.G. was the mother of Jane and Mary. Defendant was her uncle. They moved
into the Fontana home in November 2017 and moved out in September 2020. Mary and
Jane were both in elementary school—she believed one in fourth and the other in fifth
grade—at the time they moved into the Fontana house. Her family only lived with
defendant in the Fontana home and no other location. She and her husband would leave
Jane and Mary home alone with defendant when they had to work. The only unusual
behavior her mother observed in Jane was that she took Jane for a physical at the doctor
and Jane refused to remove her clothes to be examined.
Detective Baker interviewed defendant after he was arrested on May 11, 2022.
She interviewed defendant with Detective Romo. The jury was shown the video of the
7
interview and was given transcripts. The details of the interview are set forth in the
discussion post.2
No medical exam was performed on Jane or Mary based on the length of time
between reporting and the incidents. Detective Baker had already spoken with Mary and
Jane by the time she spoke with defendant. She agreed that during the first two hours of
the interview defendant denied any inappropriate touching. She and Detective Romo
mentioned several times finding DNA on the girls even though they found no DNA. She
also acknowledged that Detective Romo mentioned that people who confess to murders
walk out of the police station all the time. Detective Baker admitted she used the DNA
statements as a ruse.
Mary participated in a forensic interview in Texas. Defendant put his hands on
her. He touched her in the part of her body that “girls have and they go to the bathroom
with,” and put his hands inside of her. This happened more than one time. She told him
to stop but he refused. He walked in on her while she was in the shower. She said no to
him and left.
Cousin, who was in seventh grade, was a cousin of Mary and Jane. When she and
Jane were “little,” Jane told her that defendant was touching her. They were still living in
the Fontana house when Jane told Cousin. Jane made her promise not to tell anyone.
2 The jury was shown the interview and given the transcript of defendant’s
interview as Exhibits 13 and 13a.
8
2. DEFENSE
Loretta Isabel Jaimus was defendant’s sister and had known Jane and Mary since
they were born. She owned the Fontana home and rented it to Cynthia and her family.
She had observed interactions between Jane and defendant while they were living in the
Fontana home. She never saw anything unusual between them. Jane was very friendly
and playful. She had observed cousins and friends accuse Jane of lying during
interactions.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends the trial court erred by admitting his pretrial statement to
police as it was coerced and involuntary. Based on the totality of the circumstances,
defendant’s statement was properly admitted at trial.
A. ADDITIONAL FACTUAL HISTORY
Defendant was interviewed by Detective Baker. Defendant had been living with
his sister Lorena H. for some time but had recently been sleeping in his car. He was not
working and spent his days sitting in the park. He left his sister’s house because she
rented it out to someone else. Detective Baker and defendant had a normal conversation
back and forth. Defendant told Detective Baker he did not know why he was brought to
the police station. Defendant was allowed to go to the bathroom.
Detective Romo joined the interview. Defendant was given his Miranda rights
and he waived his rights, agreeing to speak with the detectives. Defendant had lived with
Mary and Jane for two or three years. Defendant and the detectives talked about his work
schedule. He watched Mary and Jane once or twice a week while their parents were at
9
work. He thought Jane was between 10 and 12 years old when they lived in the Fontana
house. Mary was between five and six years old.
Jane had an attitude with defendant. She never liked him. Mary loved him. He
said that Jane would come into his room when he did not want her in there. The
detectives offered defendant water; he declined.
When defendant watched the girls, he would watch television with them but he
would sit on the stairs and they would sit on the couch. Jane would watch cartoons in
defendant’s room and he would have to ask her to leave when he wanted to go to sleep.
Jane would get mad. He denied that he and Jane ever cuddled when she was in his room.
He never hugged Jane when she would ask for a hug. Mary would come in his room and
just stand by his bed. He never spanked them or touched them. He never touched Jane or
Mary “one single time.”
Detective Baker then told defendant that there was a reason they were talking to
him. She wanted to make sure that defendant was giving her an accurate description of
what happened with Jane and Mary. Detective Baker told him it did not sound right that
over two or three years living with Mary and Jane, he never once touched them. He then
said that he touched Jane and Mary on the arm, back or shoulder when they were playing
tag.
Detective Baker then told defendant that the reason he was talking to them was
that the girls had made statements about him touching them. Detective Baker asked if
there was a time that they were in his room that he may have accidentally touched them
inappropriately somewhere on their body. Defendant responded, “To tell you the truth, I
10
don’t remember.” He “never tried to do that stuff.” He did not “know” if he could have
mistakenly touched them. He then denied that he could have touched them
inappropriately. Jane would “kick my door in” and start acting “dumb with me.” He
would just walk out of the room.
Defendant did not touch Jane’s chest, butt, thighs or private parts. Jane did “rub
into me,” and he would tell her not to do it. It made him feel weird because she was a
little girl. Mary never did this. He never saw Jane without her clothes on. Defendant
had no idea why the girls would say that he touched their private parts.
Detective Romo told defendant to tell them the truth. Defendant said that Jane
would try to rub on him when she would walk past him and he would say no. He would
never be on his bed with Jane.
Detective Romo asked defendant, “So, why would your DNA be on her? You
know, stuff stays, right? With these crimes, uh, you see stuff all the time on the news,
they solve crimes because of DNA from 30 years ago…. [¶] … [¶] …So, why would
yours be on her if you’ve never touched her or done anything.” Defendant responded,
“The only time touched her is just her arms. That’s it.” Detective Baker told defendant
that Jane detailed that he put her on the bed and touched her in private places. Defendant
responded, “She used to, like, mess with me and I’d go, no.” She would tell him they
should “play around” and he would say no. She would try to touch him. He claimed she
tried to touch him on the arms and face. Detective Baker responded, “Well, tell us,
because you know what? Maybe it’s her that’s gonna get in trouble. So be honest with
11
us.” He then stated that Jane tried to touch his legs and his “private.” He would push her
away.
Defendant denied that Jane had been in his room without her clothes on.
Detective Romo asked, “No? Then why would your DNA be on her?” He had “no idea.”
Detective Romo stated, “Well, you can’t … make up DNA. You can’t put someone’s
DNA on you without physical touch.” Defendant responded, “She was trying to rub on
me. I said no. Get away.” She tried to rub his private part but she never touched him
because he pushed her away. He never ejaculated on her. Detective Baker told
defendant he had to be as detailed as possible as to how Jane would touch him so she
could talk to Jane about it. He denied Jane ever touched his private part.
Detective Romo encouraged defendant to tell the truth. “Lies now only hurt
later.” Detective Baker told defendant that there was no benefit to Mary and Jane to say
these things happened. Detective Baker also told defendant that the DNA had to be
explained. Defendant responded, “I don’t know.” He continued to deny he touched Jane
or that she touched him. Detective Romo again mentioned the DNA and defendant
continued to state that he did not know. He denied that anything happened with Mary.
Detective Baker encouraged defendant to tell the truth and that it was possible it was a
mistake.
Defendant then asked if they were going to put him in jail. Detective Romo
responded, “Uh-huh. Right now depends on how long in jail, though.” Defendant
responded, “Not if I tell you, yeah, you’re gonna … put me in jail, anyways.” Detective
Romo responded, “Na -, not necessarily man,” and “coming onto you, there’s
12
justifications for this, though, right?” Detective Romo also warned defendant if he did
not explain what had happened, it would just be “her” word as to what happened.
Detective Romo stated, “Jose. Truthful people walk outta here all the time.” Defendant
made some inaudible statements—Detective Romo responded, “I think we have to ... we
have to hear what it is to know what’s gonna happen.” Defendant then told them that he
knew he was going to go to jail. Detective Romo told defendant, “Not necessarily.
People have walked outta here that have confessed to murders, and they walk out,” and
“People have confessed to doing things,” and they have walked out. Detective Romo
stated that there were always justifications.
Defendant asked, “If I [¶] … [¶] tell you guys, yeah, I did it, I wanna know if I’m
gonna go….” Detective Romo responded, “I, I don’t know. Uh, it all depends on what
you say. I can’t promise you anything.” Defendant stated, “if I tell you guys no, I’m still
going to jail. You guys have me already.” Detective Romo responded, “Just because
you’re here doesn’t mean you’re going … [¶] … [¶] to jail.” Detective Baker also stated,
“Like he said ...people walk out all the time.” Defendant stated, “I could say, yeah, and
then I, then you guys could walk out and then come back later, like. a couple minutes
later, like, alright, ...we have to take you to jail.” Detective Romor responded, “That
could be [a] possibility. Someone could come arrest us right now ... anyone could go to
jail at any time,” and it all depended on what defendant told them. Detective Baker once
again told defendant there was DNA.
Defendant began describing things that occurred between him and the girls. Jane
would try to touch him and he would tell her to get away from him. She tried to touch his
13
penis. The detectives then told defendant that there was DNA found on Jane that could
only come from semen. He denied that he ever “jacked off” on her. Jane wanted to have
sex with him. She tried to touch his penis but he said no. He never put his finger in her
vagina. Detective Romo stated that the DNA was found on her and her clothes. Jane
came in while defendant was taking a shower but he did not recall if she took off her
clothes.
He insisted that Jane tried to have sex with him but he said no. He stated that one
time he was lying down on his bed, and Jane grabbed his penis and tried to put it inside
her vagina. He admitted that he ejaculated on the sheets but he did not know if his penis
went in her vagina. He did not know how DNA would be on her vagina. He admitted
her vagina touched his penis. She never touched her vagina with his hands. He insisted
that Jane kept coming back to his room that night but it only happened one time. He then
stated it happened two times that she forced herself on him, trying to put his penis in her
vagina.
At the end of the interview, defendant stated that this may have happened three
times. The third time Jane forced herself into his bedroom and tried to have sex with
him. Jane’s mother called for her downstairs. After that time, Jane did not come to his
room. Jane tried to force his hand inside her vagina but it never went inside. This
happened two times.
Defendant denied that anything happened with Mary. He claimed Jane tried to get
Mary to join her and defendant but Mary refused. Mary saw Jane and defendant together
but never saw him naked. Mary was lying if she said she saw defendant naked. He
14
believed that Jane was 13 or 14 years old when she tried to have sex with him. At this
point in the interview, defendant was allowed to go to the bathroom.
When he returned, defendant told the detectives he believed that Jane’s family
knew what had happened between them prior to speaking with the detectives. He told his
brother that Jane came onto him. He never touched Jane’s chest. He insisted that Jane
was strong and hard to push away. Jane stopped coming to his room a few weeks prior to
them moving to Texas. He knew that sooner or later Jane would tell someone and the
police would come after him. At the end of the interview, Detective Baker told defendant
that Mary and Jane were claiming he put his fingers in their vaginas, and his penis inside
of them. He did not want to write an apology note to them.
Prior to trial, defendant brought a motion in limine to exclude the statement
because it violated his Miranda rights. He also brought a motion to exclude the statement
because it was involuntary based on false promises of leniency from the interrogating
detectives. He referred to the exchange with the detectives regarding people who confess
and walk out of the police station. The “promises” were made one hour into the
interview after defendant repeatedly denied committing any sexual abuse. He also
claimed that the detectives attempted to deceive him by saying they found defendant’s
DNA on both girls. These two things combined led to an involuntary confession.
The People filed opposition to defendant’s motion to suppress his statement. The
People denied that his confession was involuntary. Defendant admitted he spoke with
law enforcement voluntarily. Further, Detective Romo told defendant, “ ‘it all depends
15
on what you say. I can’t promise you anything.’ ” Romo also said, “ ‘just because
you’re here doesn’t mean you’re going to...jail.’ ”
A hearing was held on March 20, 2024. Detective Baker testified. On May 11,
2022, defendant was placed under arrest and transported to the Fontana Police
Department. He was placed in an interview room where she interviewed him. There
were audio and video recordings. A transcript of the interview was prepared. Detective
Baker advised defendant of his Miranda rights and he waived them. He stated that he
understood his rights. He signed a waiver of his rights.
Defendant also testified regarding the Miranda issues. He claimed he was not able
to read the form. He had difficulty reading. The prosecutor asked, “Sir, you understood
the rights, though, when she read them to you, right?” Defendant responded, “Yeah I did
understand.” He also admitted to willingly speaking with Detective Baker even after
being advised of his rights; he was not forced into talking to the detectives. The trial
court found it was clear that defendant understood his Miranda rights and voluntarily
waived them. Any statements made after waiving his rights were properly admitted.
The trial court subsequently addressed the voluntariness of the confession. The
trial court noted that defendant argued his statement was coerced and the test was
whether his will was overborne in light of the totality of the circumstances. Defendant’s
interrogation lasted approximately four hours and there were a few breaks. The tone of
the interview was conversational. Defendant was immediately given a bathroom break
when he asked. He declined offered beverages. The trial court described the interview
room as a small, well-lit room with defendant on one side of a table and the detectives on
16
the opposite side.3 The trial court also noted that a promise of leniency depended on the
nature of the benefit offered. The trial court noted, “Here, the officers encouraged the
defendant to [tell] the truth because it would make him feel better, because it was okay to
tell the truth, because the truth helps. It is long established that these encouragements do
not constitute coercion.” The trial court noted that defendant asked, “If I tell you, you’re
going to put me in jail.” One of the detectives responded, “Not necessarily. It depends
on what happened. People confess to murder and walk out of here.” The trial court
found that this was not an implied promise of leniency. “It’s actually an accurate
statement, when someone says something that incriminates themselves, that does not
necessarily lead to them being incarcerated or even arrested. It depends on the
circumstances.” It was not a promise of anything.
The trial court then noted that defendant may have thought the detectives “had
him” either because of the DNA or that fact that he “did it.” Further, defendant knew that
the victims had spoken with other family members. Defendant stated, “If I tell you no,
I’m still going to jail. You guys have me.” This statement implied that “he expects to go
to jail no matter what he says, so it’s not an incentive to falsely confess.” The trial court
noted that the second-most important aspect was that defendant did not confess. “[H]is
incriminating statements are to blame the alleged victims. If immediately after making
that statement or even shortly after making that statement he did a mea culpa, I did it,
3 The video was introduced as an exhibit in this case, but defendant has not asked
to have the video transferred to this court and does not rely on the video in arguing the
confession was coerced. We only consider the transcript of the interview in making a
determination as to whether the statement was voluntary.
17
confessed to everything, I would have some concerns, but that’s not what happened. He
continued to deny, deny, deny, deny, and then continued to blame the alleged victims.”
The trial court found that given its review of the transcript, the video, the motion
and reply, it found “For all of the reasons that I’ve just set out, I find the defendant’s will
was not overborne by the officers’ statement; that he continued to blame the victim and
never did a mea culpa is significant to this case, and; therefore, the motion to exclude the
defendant’s incriminating statements, such as they are, is denied.”
The jury was instructed, “The defendant may not be convicted of any crime based
on his out-of-court statements alone. You may rely [on] the defendant’s out-of-court
statements to convict him only if you first conclude that other evidence shows that the
charged crime or lesser included offense was committed. [¶] That other evidence may be
slight and need only be enough to support a reasonable inference that a crime was
committed.”
Defendant brought a motion for new trial based on the erroneous admission of his
statement at trial, which was denied by the trial court. The trial court noted that
defendant never confessed but blamed Jane as the aggressor and he denied any sexual
contact with Mary. Further, there was no promise of leniency. Defendant denied any
sexual contact with Mary.
B. ANALYSIS
“State and federal constitutional principles prohibit a conviction based on an
involuntary confession.” (People v. Winbush (2017) 2 Cal.5th 402, 452.) “An
involuntary confession may not be introduced into evidence at trial. [Citation.] The
18
prosecution has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that a
defendant’s confession was voluntarily made. [Citations.] In determining whether a
confession was voluntary, ‘ “[t]he question is whether defendant’s choice to confess was
not ‘essentially free’ because his [or her] will was overborne.” ’ ” (People v. Carrington
(2009) 47 Cal.4th 145, 169.)
“A confession’s voluntariness depends upon the totality of the circumstances in
which it was made. [Citations.] Relevant factors include: ‘ “ ‘the crucial element of
police coercion [citation]; the length of the interrogation [citation]; its location [citation];
its continuity’ as well as ‘the defendant's maturity [citation]; education [citation];
physical condition [citation]; and mental health.’ ” ’ [Citation.] No single factor is
dispositive.” (People v. Winbush, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 452.)
“ ‘ “On appeal, the trial court’s findings as to the circumstances surrounding the
confession are upheld if supported by substantial evidence, but the trial court's finding as
to the voluntariness of the confession is subject to independent review.” ’ ” (People v.
Carrington, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 169.)
Defendant complains that the detectives made false promises of leniency in
advising him that some suspects who confess to murder walk out of the police station and
that people walk out of the station all the time. These promises made defendant “expect
benefits and potentially more lenient treatment” if he admitted the allegations against
him. “ ‘Once a suspect has been properly advised of his rights, he may be questioned
freely so long as the questioner does not threaten harm or falsely promise benefits.
Questioning may include exchanges of information, summaries of evidence, outline of
19
theories of events, confrontation with contradictory facts, even debate between police and
suspect.... Yet in carrying out their interrogations the police must avoid threats of
punishment for the suspect’s failure to admit or confess particular facts and must avoid
false promises of leniency as a reward for admission or confession.’ ” (People v.
Holloway (2004) 33 Cal.4th 96, 115.)
Here, defendant initially asked if he was going to jail. Detective Romo responded
that truthful people walk out of the police station all the time. Detective Romo warned
defendant, though, that they “have to hear what it is to know what’s gonna happen.”
Detective Baker also stated that people walked out of the police station all the time.
However, Detective Romo also stated, “All depends on what you say. I can’t promise
you anything.” The detectives did not promise defendant that he was going to leave the
police station a free man. They consistently advised him that there were no promises
being made and that future events all depended upon what defendant told them.
Defendant also contends the detectives used coercive tactics by falsely advising
him that his DNA had been found connecting him to the sexual assaults. Defendant
insists that he was advised that he may be released from custody, and that his DNA had
been found on Jane, which resulted in the change in his version of the events. He insists
that these coercive tactics overcame his free will and his statement was involuntary.
In People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 992, “the police deceived
defendant only about his having been seen by two witnesses leaving the ... residence—
which ultimately led him to admit he was in the residence, a statement he then
retracted—and that his semen was found in the victim—a fact he vehemently denied.”
20
(Id. at p. 993.) The court noted, “ ‘ “Lies told by the police to a suspect under
questioning can affect the voluntariness of an ensuing confession, but they are not per se
sufficient to make it involuntary.” ’ ” (Ibid.) It concluded, “Viewing police statements
under the totality of the circumstances test, we cannot say they rendered defendant’s
statement involuntary.” (Ibid.)
The statement made by the detectives that his DNA was found on the victims,
which was untrue, did not necessarily render defendant’s statement involuntary. (People
v. Richardson, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 993.) Here, Detective Romo asked—at the
beginning of the interview—why they found defendant’s DNA on the girls. Defendant at
that point only stated that it was because he touched Jane’s arm. Later in the interview,
Detective Romo mentioned several times that defendant’s DNA was found on the girls;
defendant continued to deny he touched their private parts. Defendant was eventually
told that his DNA was found on Jane’s vagina, and at that point, defendant stated he had
ejaculated on the sheets and that could explain why they found his DNA. He continued
to inform the detectives that Jane was the aggressor and had numerous times come to his
room and tried to put his penis in her vagina. He never accepted responsibility. He also
vehemently denied throughout the interview that he ever inappropriately touched Mary.
“ ‘Although coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to establish an
involuntary confession, it “does not itself compel a finding that a resulting confession is
involuntary.” [Citation.]” The statement and the inducement must be causally linked.’ ”
(People v. McWhorter (2009) 47 Cal.4th 318, 347.) Here, the detectives confronted
defendant several times with the mistruth about his DNA being found on Jane and Mary.
21
It was not until several hours into the interview that defendant began disclosing the acts
that happened with Jane. It does not follow that he was induced to make such a statement
based on the representation that his DNA was found. It could have been for many
number of reasons, including that he knew Jane and Mary had told their family. Further,
defendant never admitted to doing anything to Mary, so it did not induce him to make an
involuntary statement of what happened with Mary.
Defendant relies on In re Shawn D. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 200 (Shawn D.) to
support his claim that his confession was coerced. In Shawn D., a person entered a home,
and once confronted by the homeowner, left through a kitchen window. The homeowner
could not identify the intruder. (Id. at p. 203.) The defendant was 16 years old. His
friend was arrested for the burglary. The defendant was interviewed after waiving his
Miranda rights; he was told that his friend confessed to the burglary and said defendant
was with him. The defendant was told that whether he told the truth or lied it would be
included in the police report. He denied any wrongdoing. (Shawn D., at pp. 203-204.)
The defendant then was told by the detective that he did not want to see the
defendant’s pregnant girlfriend get into trouble. The detective told the defendant he
knew defendant was lying based on the statements of his friend and other evidence.
Further, the police lied and told him that a witness had seen him and his friend enter the
house. (Shawn D., supra, 20 Cal.App.4th at pp. 204-205.) The detective also told the
defendant that a witness had seen him get into his friend’s car. The detective told the
defendant to stop lying and tell the truth for his pregnant girlfriend. (Id. at pp. 205-206.)
The defendant then provided a written statement that he had dropped off his friend at the
22
house. The detective accused him of lying and that his girlfriend had implicated him in
the crime. They brought the defendant’s girlfriend into the interview room and left them
alone. His girlfriend told him that she would be locked up and go to jail if she did not tell
the detective what she knew. (Id. at p. 206.) The detective returned to the room and the
defendant admitted to driving his friend to the burglary. He was told a witness saw him
at the house even though there were no witnesses. The defendant’s girlfriend left and he
became agitated. He was told by the detective he could be tried as an adult or juvenile,
and if tried as an adult, he may go to prison. (Id. at p. 206.) The detective promised him
that if he gave back the items taken, and told the truth, the detective would speak with the
district attorney about a juvenile sentence. (Id. at p. 207.)
The appellate court found the details of the interrogation that should be considered
include whether the police lied to the defendant, whether there were threats or promises
relating to the defendant’s relatives, and whether there were promises of benefit or
leniency. Age and sophistication were also factors to consider. (Shawn D., supra, 20
Cal.App.4th at pp. 209-210.) The court in Shawn D. noted that, while the use of
deception or lies “ ‘does not alone render a resulting statement involuntary [citation],
such deception is a factor which weighs against a finding of voluntariness.’ ” (Shawn D.,
supra, 20 Cal.App.4th at p. 209.)
The Shawn D. court concluded, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the
defendant’s confession was involuntary. He was 16 years old and described as
unsophisticated and naïve in the probation report. It was reported that he suffered from
posttraumatic stress disorder and had experienced a difficult childhood. As to the details
23
of the interrogation leading to his confession, the interrogating officers repeatedly lied to
him and used deceptive tactics, including suggesting that the defendant would be treated
more leniently and he would be able to see his girlfriend and baby if he confessed.
(Shawn D., supra, 20 Cal.App.4th at pp. 212-215.) The court specifically relied on the
promises made to defendant that he would be treated more leniently if he told the truth.
The defendant was specifically advised that he would personally benefit if he confessed
to his role in the burglary. (Id. at pp. 215-216} The appellate court concluded that the
defendant’s statement should not have been admitted. (Id. at p. 217.)
Here, defendant was 47 years old at the time of the interrogation on May 11, 2022,
rather than 16 years old, and there was no evidence that he was particularly vulnerable
like the defendant in Shawn D. Further, the detectives never threatened defendant that he
would go to prison if he did not tell the truth but rather generally stated that some people
who confess actually walk out of the police station. The detectives also never promised
directly that defendant would be granted leniency if he confessed. Although the
detectives mentioned that some murderers who tell the truth are able to walk out of the
police station, defendant was never directly promised that he would walk free if he told
the truth. He was also advised that it all would depend upon what he told the detectives.
There were no promises of leniency made to defendant that induced him to make his
statement.
Based on an independent review of the totality of circumstances surrounding
defendant’s statement, it was freely and voluntarily given and properly ruled admissible
by the trial court.
24
C. PREJUDICE
Even if we were to conclude that defendant’s statement should not have been
admitted, it was not prejudicial. “ ‘The erroneous admission of a defendant’s statements
obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment is reviewed for prejudice under the beyond
a reasonable doubt standard of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, .... That test
requires the People ... “to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of
did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” ’ ” (People v. Case (2018) 5 Cal.5th 1, 22.)
Defendant claims that the introduction of his statement was prejudicial as the
prosecutor relied heavily on his statement in closing argument, including playing the
statement to the jury. Defendant claims that without his confession, there was no
substantial evidence to support his conviction.
The prosecutor in both his opening and closing argument referred not only to
defendant’s statement, but also the testimony of Mary and Jane. The prosecutor advised
the jury that if they believed the testimony of Mary and Jane, they could convict
defendant based on their testimony alone. The prosecutor noted, “So we were all here
when Jane Doe, Mary Doe and their mother … testified. And we all saw how genuine
they were when they testified.” The prosecutor noted that defendant corroborated the
testimony of Mary and Jane. The interview was played for the jury. Defendant’s counsel
responded that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of Mary and Jane. In
rebuttal argument, the prosecutor asked the jury to find defendant guilty based on the
totality of the evidence, including the testimonies of Jane, Mary and Cousin, along with
25
defendant’s statement. The prosecutor’s argument relied not only on defendant’s
statement, but also the testimonies of Jane and Mary. This does not show prejudice.
Moreover, despite defendant’s claim there was no other substantial evidence of his
guilt other than his statement, the record shows there was ample other evidence of the
sexual assaults. Defendant’s statement was introduced after the testimony of Mary and
Jane that defendant had touched them numerous times. Their testimony was powerful
and consistent. Cousin also corroborated Jane’s testimony that Jane had told Cousin
when they were younger that defendant was touching her inappropriately and not to tell
anyone. Further, defendant never admitted his guilt, rather, he blamed Jane for “coming
onto” him. He denied ever touching Mary. This is unlike Shawn D., supra, 20
Cal.App.4th 200, in which the court found reversible error based on the admission of his
involuntary statement because “there is no evidence to connect appellant to the burglary
other than appellant’s confession. Nothing else links appellant to the burglary.” (Id. at p.
217.)
Finally, the jury was instructed that it could not convict defendant based on his
statement alone. The jury had to rely on other evidence to convict defendant. We
presume the jurors followed the instructions. (People v. Wilson (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th
1006, 1014) The admission of defendant’s statement, even if we were to conclude that it
was involuntary, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
26
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed in full.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS.
MILLER
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
CODRINGTON
J.
27
