Opinion
F086493
06-17-2024
In re A.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. A.M., Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Arthur L. Bowie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Tulare County. No. JJD073802 Sylvia J. Hanna, Judge.
Arthur L. Bowie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
THE COURT [*]
Minor A.M. contends on appeal that we must reverse and set aside the juvenile court's jurisdiction and disposition orders because there is insufficient evidence on the record to support the court's finding that he committed a forcible lewd and lascivious act upon a child under the age of 14. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
On November 24, 2021, a first amended juvenile wardship petition was filed in Tulare County Superior Court, pursuant to Welfare &Institutions Code section 602, alleging minor committed two counts of lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a); counts 1 &2); and a forcible lewd and lascivious act upon a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (b)(1); count 3).
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
On May 10, 2023, the juvenile court held a jurisdictional hearing. The court found count 3 true. Counts 1 and 2 were dismissed.
On June 14, 2023, the juvenile court held a disposition hearing. Minor was adjudged a ward of the court and placed on probation with various conditions.
On June 26, 2023, minor filed a notice of appeal.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
B.V. and minor are cousins. Minor is approximately five years older than B.V.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.90, we refer to some persons by their initials. No disrespect is intended.
B.V.'s Testimony
B.V. testified at the jurisdictional hearing that when she was younger she did not really "hang out" with minor. However, she did "hang out" with his sisters, especially Y.M. B.V.'s brother, D.C., was friends with minor. She stated that, on occasion, she, minor, Y.M., and D.C. would all "hang out" together.
B.V. testified that when she was approximately eight or nine years old, she, D.C., and minor were swimming in the pool at their apartment complex together. At some point, D.C. got out of the pool. Minor and B.V. continued swimming. B.V. stated that after D.C. got out of the pool, minor pulled her down in the water by her leg. She testified that she "tried getting away from him but then he started like thrusting his hips into me" from behind. B.V. stated minor's hips were touching her "back side." B.V. stated that she then "kind of pushed him off of [her] and then [she] got out [of the pool] and ... went home." She did not see minor again that day.
B.V. testified that when she was approximately 12 years old, she and minor were in a bedroom in minor's home when he began "like holding [her] down while he was touching her." She stated she was lying on her back on a bed. She stated he was lying beside her and then touched her "[i]n her private area," touching her on her vagina with his hands, under her clothes. B.V. stated minor was holding her down on the bed "[w]ith one of his arms like he kind of had it wrapped around [her] to, like, hold [her] down, and he was touching [her] with the other hand." She stated the touching hurt her. She stated she tried to push his arm off her, and eventually managed to get minor off her, then got up and walked to the bathroom. B.V. testified that while in the bathroom, she pulled down her underwear and she saw blood in it and started crying. She stated she had not yet started her period at the time of the incident.
B.V. testified that the same night, she told Y.M. about what minor did, because she "was watching a video on [a social media site with Y.M.] about how the same thing happened to this girl and then she had seen how I went from laughing and all that to sad and I told her if this happened to you, who would you tell and she said I don't know somebody who I really trust. And she told me why[,] did this happen to you and I told her yeah. And she started guessing who it was. She's like do I know them? Are they related to your mom's side of the family, [or] to your dad's side of the family, and I was just like no, yes. And then she was just naming a bunch of my cousins and then she said is it one of my brothers and I kind of just stayed quiet. And I was just looking at her, and I was like no, why would it be one of [your] brothers and she just stayed quiet. And I was just looking at her like if it was one of [your] brothers, I wouldn't tell you. But I knew if I told her it was her brother, she would get up to go tell her mom." B.V. testified she did not tell Y.M. the truth because she was not ready to tell anyone yet.
However, B.V. testified that her mother found out during a trip to Oregon to visit other family members. B.V. stated that on that trip, she talked to another one of her cousins, T. She stated one night, she and T. were in his room and he started opening up to her about his sexuality, so she told him what had happened to her with minor. She stated she started crying and T. was just sitting there comforting her. B.V. stated that, at some point, she also told T.'s sister what happened with minor. T.'s sister then told T.'s and her mother, who then told B.V.'s mother.
B.V. stated that when they returned home, she and her mother were sitting on her mother's bed and her mother asked if it was true what she heard had happened with minor. B.V. stated she started crying and told her mother everything about the incidents with minor.
B.V. testified that minor touched her inappropriately seven or eight times. However, she stated it only hurt her during the incident on the bed that caused her to find blood in her underwear. She stated the other occasions were similar to the incident on the bed. She stated she thought the last incident of inappropriate touching by minor was the incident on the bed that caused her to find blood in her underwear.
On cross-examination, B.V. testified that the seven or eight incidents of minor touching her all occurred at different places, but most occurred at his home. She stated that during the first incident, in the pool, she first thought minor was just playing with her and that she yelled for her brother but did not think he heard. Minor stated she still went to minor's home even though he had been hurting her. She stated she did not call for help from her mother or aunts, or call to her cousin for help, who was also in the home when the incident on the bed happened. She stated that during the last incident, the door to minor's bedroom was open "a little bit," and that after going to the bathroom and discovering blood in her underwear, she went to Y.M.'s room to watch videos on a social media site with her. She stated she did not call her mother to pick her up after the incident on the bed occurred because it occurred in the middle of the night. She stated she continued to go to minor's home between the ages of eight and 12 during and after these incidents occurred.
Detective Laura Torres-Salcido's Testimony
Porterville Police Detective Laura Torres-Salcido testified that in September 2021, she conducted a child abuse response team (CART) interview with B.V. Torres-Salcido testified that B.V.'s testimony at the jurisdictional hearing was consistent with what B.V. stated during the CART interview. She stated the last incident B.V. reported occurred in March 2021.
Police Officer Cody Martin's Testimony
Porterville Police Officer Cody Martin testified that on August 25, 2021, he responded to a call to speak with B.V. about an allegation of sexual abuse of a minor. Martin testified B.V. was shy and reserved when he spoke with her. He stated they spoke alone in a bedroom in her home. He stated he did not remember B.V. becoming "emotional" or "teary eyed" during her interview. He testified he felt that she was forthcoming and answered his questions honestly. He stated she identified minor as the person who touched her inappropriately during the incidents she described.
B.V.'s Mother, M.C.'s, Testimony
M.C., B.V.'s mother, testified that she called the police in August 2021 to report sexual abuse of B.V. She identified minor as B.V.'s cousin and as the person who sexually assaulted B.V. She stated that she had taught B.V. the difference between the truth and a lie, and about "bad touch and good touch," and believed B.V. understood the difference between them. M.C. testified she did not believe her daughter had any reason to lie about the incidents with minor, and believed she could tell when her daughter was lying because, if B.V. were lying, "[s]he just stays there and won't say anything."
On cross-examination, M.C. stated B.V. did not tell her about the incidents before August 2021 until she asked her about the allegations, but she had taught B.V. about "good touch" and "bad touch" before that. M.C. stated she did not witness B.V. being touched inappropriately by anyone.
On redirect examination, M.C. confirmed B.V. and minor lived in the same apartment complex.
Defense Case
B.V.'s Brother, D.C.'s, Testimony
D.C., B.V.'s brother and minor's cousin, testified he and B.V. would "hang out" with minor and his family. He stated that most of the time, he would "hang out" just with minor, while B.V. would "hang out" with minor's sister, Y.M. D.C. stated he did not remember ever seeing minor and B.V. "hanging out" alone together. He stated that, prior to August 2021, he never noticed B.V. acting afraid of minor. He stated he did not know anything about minor touching B.V. and testified that the allegation of inappropriate touching by B.V. "just came out of nowhere honestly." D.C. stated he was not told of the allegations until D.C. was incarcerated. D.C. testified that he was protective of B.V. because he was her older brother, and had he noticed anyone hurting his sister, he would have "done something about it." When asked if he ever felt like he had to protect B.V. from minor, he stated, "No. Not really."
On cross-examination, D.C. stated he was incarcerated for committing second degree armed robbery and assaulting an officer in February 2023. D.C. stated he spoke with the investigator for minor's defense counsel and told him that he believed his sister, B.V., "100 percent."
On redirect examination, D.C. stated that even though he believed B.V., he never actually saw anything happen to her.
Minor's Brother, N.D.'s, Testimony
N.D., minor's brother and B.V.'s cousin, testified that he would "hang out" with B.V. at the park on occasion, and that his family and B.V.'s family would "hang out" together on occasion. When the families would "hang out" together, N.D. and minor's sister, Y.M., would usually "hang out" with B.V.'s sister, C., while minor would "hang out" with D.C. He stated he never saw minor and B.V. hanging out alone together, and never saw B.V. acting afraid around minor. He stated B.V. never told him minor hurt her.
Minor's sister, Y.M.'s, Testimony
Y.M., minor's sister and B.V.'s cousin, testified that at certain times her family would "hang out" with B.V.'s family. Y.M., who was 16 years old at the time of the hearing, recalled the two families used to "hang out" together six or seven years prior, when she was around nine or 10 years old. She stated that when they would "hang out" together, "most of the time it was either [her] and [her] younger brother [N.D.] and B.V. and [her] mom and [B.V.'s] mom" who were together. She stated she never saw minor and B.V. hanging out alone together. She also stated she never saw B.V. act afraid of minor and that B.V. never told her that minor acted inappropriately towards her. She stated B.V. told her a story about someone touching her inappropriately, but B.V. told Y.M. that Y.M. "did know who it was." Y.M. testified that she "repeatedly asked [B.V.] many names of people in our family and she said no to every single one." She continued, "I did ask her if it was any of my brothers and she said if it was that she would tell my mother." Y.M. stated B.V. never asked her for help to keep minor away from her.
On cross-examination, Y.M. testified that the reason she asked B.V. if any of her brothers had touched her inappropriately was because "[y]ou can't be sure, so I asked just to make sure." Y.M. concluded that she asked B.V. about six names, including minor's, her other brothers, and B.V.'s brothers. She stated she did not want to see minor get in trouble.
Minor's Sister, J.G.'s, Testimony
J.G., minor and Y.M.'s sister and B.V.'s cousin, testified that minor's family and B.V.'s family would "hang out" on occasion. She stated that during those gatherings, "[t]he grown ups usually stayed with the grown ups and the kids were always off playing." J.G. stated she was part of the "grown ups group." J.G. stated she never saw minor and B.V. hanging out together alone. She stated she observed minor hanging out with the "boy cousins. Mainly [D.C.]" B.V. would hang out with the girl cousins, A. and L. J.G. stated she never observed B.V. acting afraid of minor and that B.V. never indicated to her that minor had acted inappropriately to her.
On cross-examination, J.G. agreed she did not want to see her brother, minor, get in trouble, but that "[n]obody ever does."
Minor's Mother, E.D.'s, Testimony
E.D., minor's mother, testified that she had known B.V. since she was born and that B.V "was a good kid ... she would always come to my house, play with my kids and spend the night sometimes with [Y.M.]. She was always playing with [Y.M.]." E.D. stated she never had any problems with B.V. She stated she stopped interacting with B.V. prior to the allegations being made by B.V. because sometime around 2019 E.D. stopped interacting with B.V.'s family. She stated that after 2017, she did not see B.V. acting any differently toward minor and that B.V. never indicated that minor had acted inappropriately toward her. E.D. stated that after 2017, B.V. would call E.D. to come pick her up to play at her home, stating, "[B.V.] always wanted to come over." E.D. stated that on the occasions that B.V. came to E.D.'s home, "There was always-my home is always full of people. There was always people there. I was there .. all my kids were there. [B.V.] was-they were never alone that I could say I left them there alone." E.D. stated that when B.V. came to her home, she would "hang out" with Y.M. most of the time. "They would always be talking. She would even-with everybody even [N.D.], they would play the game, the [video games].... She was always [a] happy kid playing around with my kids." E.D. stated she never saw B.V. and minor hanging out alone together. Minor would primarily hang out with D.C. because they were raised together. She stated that she remembered that "B.V. or M.C. never had anything negative to say about [minor]. There was [sic] times when they would come over and insist for him to go over, so they could hang around and play. I don't know with the [video games] or just-you know, so he could come over. And [M.C.] would always come and say hey, how come you don't let him come over anymore. It was just because I, me, myself, I'm very strict and I wouldn't like my kids to be out-you know, in other people's house[s]. She would always insist if I would let them go. She would come and ask for permission if I would let them go." E.D. said there were times when B.V. would ask to come over and she would tell B.V., "[N]o." E.D. stated that B.V. would then ask M.C. to go to her and ask for permission to come over.
E.D. testified that prior to August 2021, there were many things that she found out about B.V. that caused her to stop talking to B.V. or stop having her come over to her home. According to E.D., it had nothing to do with her children. She stated, "It had to do with personal things between me and [B.V.]." E.D. stated there was drama between her and B.V., which had nothing to do with the rest of the kids. E.D. stated, "B.V. would still call me and she would come over and spend the night. She would still come over and visit with Y.M. Even when I changed address[es], she would still look for me. She would still call me and tell me Tia, can I come over, Tia, my grandpa is going to drop me off, can I come over. I would always say yes, you can come over. And I would pick her up. The last time I picked her up she insisted [three] days in a row if I would pick her up and bring her to my house. And I would always tell her yeah I would pick her up until the third day I picked her up. That was the last time I picked her up and took her to my house. She stayed there for days until [M.C.] called her and told her that she needed to go home because it was the time they could come over there, and that was the only way she left my home." E.D. further stated that during the time that B.V. stayed at her home she never indicated that she was afraid of anyone in her home; she never looked like she did not want to be there. E.D. stated she could tell B.V. was not comfortable at her own home. E.D. testified that although B.V. did not tell her anything about her home life, she heard from B.V.'s other siblings about what was going on at home and that B.V. was not a happy child. She stated, "She was striving for a lot of attention from her mom, and that's why she would always come to me. [¶] She would always talk to me and be there at the house. But we would always be together.... I can't say that I ever seen [sic] her afraid or anything because she wasn't. She was a happy child when she was in my house."
On cross-examination, E.D. testified she was very surprised to hear about the allegations against minor, and that she had never seen minor "act[] weird or nothing like that." E.D. stated minor had "always been a good kid._ I can't tell that I seen [ sic ] anything weird about him because he's not. He hasn't given me any troubles at all." E.D. agreed that minor would have known that it would be wrong to commit the acts alleged against him. When she asked minor about the allegations, "he totally said he did not do nothing, that he has nothing to do about that because he's always seen [B.V.] like his little sister. They were all raised together. They were raised together."
E.D. stated she asked minor why he believed B.V. would accuse him of sexual abuse, "he just said that he had no idea what was going on and why would she say this." She stated minor told her that he and B.V. were never alone together at B.V.'s home or at her home. According to E.D., B.V., minor and the rest of her children were always supervised at her home. She stated that B.V. said he was never alone at M.C.'s home; M.C. was always there at her home when he was there. He was always playing with D.C. when he was at M.C.'s home. She stated that minor was never allowed to sleep over at M.C.'s home, even when he was invited to do so. She testified, "[I]t was rare the occasion that they would come and ask for permission because they would know that I would not let [minor] spend the night out of the house." However, she recalled there were occasions that he spent the night at M.C.'s home "because [M.C.] and [D.C.] would come and ask for permission if [minor] could go over and sleep, other than that, no." E.D. stated that before the allegations came out regarding minor, she and M.C. got into it. She and B.V. stopped talking because they had to stay away from her and she had to stay away from them. She stated that, prior to these allegations, she and B.V. had a good relationship and she would ask to come over. She also stated B.V. had a good relationship with all of E.D.'s children, including minor. She stated that "there was not a day that you would see her that she was scared or she didn't want to talk to him or that she was trying to get away. She would be there with all of them." She stated B.V. and D.C. always wanted to be at her home. E.D. stated that B.V. wanted to be at E.D.'s home more than she wanted to be at her own home. She testified that all of B.V.'s siblings wanted to be at her home, and she never saw anything or felt that any of them were in danger in her home. She stated, "They felt so safe they would rather stay at my house."
On redirect examination, E.D. stated that if she knew minor had hurt B.V. she would not be testifying that he did not do it.
Prosecution Rebuttal Case
Sheriff's Deputy Ryan Melo's Testimony
Tulare County Sheriff's Deputy Ryan Melo testified that in August 2021 he responded to a call to speak with someone with the initials B.V. regarding a possible sexual abuse of a minor case. He stated he spoke to B.V. about the incidents and that "her eyes [were] watery and she was emotional." Melo stated she was forthcoming with her answers, "[f]or the most part." He stated that, during the interview, "[t]here was one part where B.V. was telling me that she knew what [minor] was trying to do and I asked her what was that, and she told me she did not know." Melo stated, "This is after B.V. was describing the incident where [minor] had pushed her under the water, and she stated she knew what he was trying to do, and I asked her to clarify that some more and she told me she didn't know as if she didn't want to explain." Melo stated B.V. seemed emotional about what she was describing.
DISCUSSION
I. SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
Minor contends the evidence is insufficient to support the juvenile court's finding that he committed a forcible lewd and lascivious act upon a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (b)(1)). The People disagree. We agree with the People.
A. Background
The court sustained count 3 of the petition, finding minor committed the offense of a forcible lewd act upon B.V., a child under the age of 14, pursuant to section 288, subdivision (b)(1), stating, "I do believe that there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt for [c]ount 3, and that is based upon the testified incident in [minor's home] whereby [B.V.] describes in great detail the assault. It very likely did not-it might have felt like it took forever, but it was probably something that happened pretty rapidly. And the [c]ourt does find the victim credible. So [c]ount 3 is found to be true beyond all reasonable doubt for this [c]ourt."
B. Law
We review the minor's contentions using the same standard of review that applies in adult criminal cases. (In re V.V. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1020, 1026.)
The test is not whether guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." (Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319.)
"Specifically, we determine whether substantial evidence-'evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value'-supports the juvenile court's findings. [Citation.] We view the evidence 'in the light most favorable to the prosecution and presume in support of the [findings] the existence of every fact the [court] could reasonably have deduced from the evidence.' [Citation.] We 'accept [all] logical inferences that the [court] might have drawn from the ... evidence' [citation], but reject inferences' "based on suspicion alone or on imagination, speculation, supposition, surmise, conjecture, or guess work"' [citations]. We will reverse only if' "it appears 'that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support'" the [court's findings].'" (In re I.A. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 767, 778.)
The reviewing court "does not, however, limit its review to the evidence favorable to the respondent." (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 577.) Instead, it "must resolve the issue in the light of the whole record-i.e., the entire picture of the defendant put before the jury-and may not limit [its] appraisal to isolated bits of evidence selected by the respondent." (Ibid.)
"Substantial evidence includes circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence." (In re Michael D. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 115, 126.)" 'The standard of review is the same in cases in which the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence. [Citation.]'" (People v. Harris (2013) 57 Cal.4th 804, 849.) A finding based on conjecture or surmise cannot be affirmed. (People v. Memro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 658, 695, overruled on other grounds by People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4th 172, 181-182.) This is because suspicion is not evidence; it only raises a possibility, which will not support an inference of fact. To justify a conviction, the trier of fact must be persuaded to a near certainty. Even a strong suspicion is insufficient to support the finding. (People v. Thompson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 303, 324.) A doubtful or uncertain fact must inure to the detriment of the party with the burden of proof on the issue. (People v. Tatge (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 430, 436; Reese v. Smith (1937) 9 Cal.2d 324, 328.)
It is not our job to reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses. (People v. De Paula (1954) 43 Cal.2d 643, 649.) Although we review the whole record, "[t]he uncorroborated testimony of a single witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction, unless the testimony is physically impossible or inherently improbable." (People v. Scott (1978) 21 Cal.3d 284, 296; see People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 489.) "A judgment supported by the testimony of witnesses who have not been discredited and whose testimony is not inherently improbable will be affirmed." (People v. Franz (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439.)"' "To warrant the rejection of the statements given by a witness who has been believed by a trial court, there must exist either a physical impossibility that they are true, or their falsity must be apparent without resorting to inferences or deductions. [Citations.] Conflicts and even testimony which is subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends. [Citation.]" '" (People v. Mayberry (1975) 15 Cal.3d 143, 150.)
"By their very nature, sex crimes are usually committed in seclusion without third party witnesses or substantial corroborating evidence. The ensuing trial often presents conflicting versions of the event and requires the trier of fact to make difficult credibility determinations." (People v. Falsetta (1999) 21 Cal.4th 903, 915.) "[W]ith respect to conflicts in the testimony or conflicting inferences which might be drawn from the evidence, the power of the appellate court begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the conclusion reached by the trier of fact." (Helms v. Thomas (1953) 120 Cal.App. 2d 265, 268-269.)
A conviction or sustained juvenile adjudication that is not supported by sufficient evidence is not just an error of state law, but also constitutes a denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Jackson v. Virginia, supra, 443 U.S. at pp. 309, 318.)
Section 288, subdivision (b)(1) states:
"A person who commits an act described in subdivision (a) by use of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person, is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 5, 8, or 10 years." (§ 288, subd. (b)(1).)
In child molestation cases, as long as the victim specifies the type of conduct involved, its frequency, and that the conduct occurred during the limitation period, nothing more is required to establish the substantiality of the victim's testimony. (People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 316.)
C. Analysis
Here, the evidence is sufficient to support the juvenile court's finding that minor committed a forcible lewd and lascivious act upon B.V., a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (b)(1)). As B.V.'s testimony about the incident in the bedroom at minor's home that caused her to find blood in her underwear is neither physically impossible nor inherently improbable, her testimony alone is sufficient to sustain the court's finding. (See People v. Scott, supra, 21 Cal.3d at p. 296; see also People v. Panah, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 489.)
Minor contends B.V.'s testimony and prior statements are "so inconsistent, confusing and conflicted that they are utterly lacking in credibility and amount to no evidence at all." He argues, "this is one of these 'extreme cases' where 'the evidence is so lacking in substantiality as to truth or credibility that it falls far short of that quantum of verity, reasonableness and substantiality required by law in criminal cases....'" He further argues that B.V.'s testimony that she did not tell anyone for months after the incident in the bedroom, and later only disclosed it "in a mysterious clandestine manner," refusing to name who did it, shows it is not true. He also argues that B.V.'s testimony that" '[she] just stayed quiet'" when Y.M. asked if one of Y.M.'s brothers was the perpetrator shows B.V. lied about the incident, because B.V.'s mother testified that when B.V. lies," 'she just stays there and won't say anything.'" Last, he argues that "[t]he numerous sexual events alleged to have happened could not have taken place without somebody observing at least one of them."
As stated above, it is not our job to reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses. (See People v. De Paula, supra, 43 Cal.2d at p. 649.) We are authorized to reject the statements of a witness believed by the trial court only where there is "either a physical impossibility that they are true, or their falsity must be apparent without resorting to inferences or deductions." (People v. Huston (1943) 21 Cal.2d 690, 693, overruled on other grounds by People v. Burton (1961) 55 Cal.2d 328, 352.) Further, testimony is not inherently improbable where it "merely discloses unusual circumstances." (Ibid.) To be improbable, the evidence must be such as to assert the occurrence of something which would not have been possible under the circumstances. (People v. Headlee (1941) 18 Cal.2d 266, 267.)
Here, there is sufficient evidence on the record to support the juvenile court's finding that B.V.'s testimony is credible about the incident in the bedroom. Contrary to minor's assertions, although no one witnessed the incident, B.V.'s testimony is neither physically impossible nor inherently improbable. She testified she was approximately 12 years old when the incident in minor's bedroom occurred, and that it was the last incident with him. She stated she was lying on her back on the bed, in the middle of the night, with the door slightly open, and that they were alone in the room together. She said he held her down with one arm, touching her vagina with his hand, inside of her clothing. This is consistent with Y.M.'s testimony about what B.V. told her occurred that night, even though B.V. did not name the perpetrator to Y.M. at the time. It is also consistent with E.D.'s testimony that B.V. would often visit minor's home during that period. Further, Torres-Salcido testified that B.V.'s testimony was consistent with her CART interview. The court was accordingly entitled to make the determination that B.V.'s incomplete initial disclosure of the incident and delayed identification of minor as the perpetrator did not mean that B.V. was not credible. Further, minor contends it was impossible for the incident in the bedroom at minor's home to occur without a witness because there were others present in the home. We disagree. The incident was not impossible nor improbable simply because others were in the home at the time it occurred. Further, B.V. testified it occurred in the middle of the night and that she did not call for help. As stated above, testimony is not "inherently improbable" where it "merely discloses unusual circumstances." (People v. Huston, supra, 21 Cal.2d at p. 693, overruled on other grounds by People v. Burton (1961) 55 Cal.2d 328, 352.) We conclude the record supports the court's finding B.V.'s testimony is credible, and neither physically impossible nor inherently improbable.
Last, minor argues this case is similar to People v. Casillas (1943) 60 Cal.App.2d 785, where the appellate court reversed the trial court's finding that the defendant committed rape and incest against a minor. (Id. at pp. 787, 795.) There, the appellate court concluded the minor victim was not credible because her testimony was inherently improbable. (Id. at p. 794.) It found her testimony to be "so improbable or false as to be incredible" because she first named other people as the perpetrator of the sexual assault against her, before instead naming the defendant. (Ibid.) Minor here argues B.V.'s testimony is the same as that in Casillas because B.V. did not name minor as the perpetrator when asked by Y.M., instead staying silent, and she only later named minor as the perpetrator when she disclosed the incident to T. and then her mother. However, we disagree with minor that B.V.'s silence when asked the perpetrator's identity by Y.M. is the equivalent of accusing multiple different people, as B.V. testified she was not ready to tell anyone yet. Here, rather, because B.V. named no one when she first disclosed the incident to Y.M., before later naming minor as the perpetrator, we conclude her disclosures and testimony were not improbable. Rather than accuse multiple different people of committing the sexual assault as the victim did in Casillas, B.V. instead first gave an incomplete disclosure, before later giving more complete but consistent disclosures to T. and her mother and later again to the police officers and detective.
Accordingly, as the juvenile court was entitled to make the determination that B.V.'s testimony was credible and neither physically impossible nor inherently improbable, B.V.'s testimony alone is sufficient to support the court's finding that minor committed a forcible lewd and lascivious act against her when she was under the age of 14, pursuant to section 288, subdivision (b)(1).
DISPOSITION
The jurisdiction and disposition orders are affirmed.
[*] Before Franson, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.