From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Harris

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division
Jun 25, 2024
No. G063240 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 25, 2024)

Opinion

G063240

06-25-2024

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT LEE HARRIS, JR., Defendant and Appellant.

Jan B. Norman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, No. SWF2201978 Stephen J. Gallon, Judge. Affirmed.

Jan B. Norman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

MOTOIKE, J.

A jury convicted appellant Robert Lee Harris, Jr., of attempted rape (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 261, subd. (a)(2); count 2), inflicting corporal injury on a spouse (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count 3), felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 4) and ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a); count 5), and possession of an illegal weapon (§ 22210; count 6). The jury found true Harris had personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) in the commission of counts 2 and 3. After a bench trial on Harris's priors and aggravating factors, the trial court found true the allegation Harris had suffered a prior "strike" offense, pursuant to sections 667, subdivisions (c) and (e)(1), and 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1), and within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a). The court also found nine aggravating factors to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court imposed a prison term of 13 years four months.

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), setting forth the facts of the case and requesting we review the entire record. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), appellate counsel also identified two potential issues to assist in our independent review. Harris was provided 30 days to file his own written argument, but he did not do so.

After an examination of the entire record and appointed counsel's Wende/Anders brief, we find no other reasonably arguable issues. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) The judgment is affirmed.

FACTS

In 2022, Harris and D.T. had been married for 17 years. They lived together until their separation in 2018, as D.T. was "tired of the marriage." Harris had also been "physically violent" towards D.T. From mid-2018 to April 2022, D.T. was living in a homeless shelter and then hotel rooms. Harris would stay with her a "couple of nights here and there in the hotel room, but not permanently." Harris and D.T. were sexually intimate three or four times a year in 2020 and 2021, with the last time possibly occurring in 2021.

In 2022, D.T. had been living in a residence with her and Harris's minor children (their two daughters and son). D.T.'s daughters shared the front bedroom of the house whilst D.T., and sometimes D.T.'s son, would stay in the back bedroom. Harris moved into this residence in October 2022. When Harris moved in, D.T. started staying in the front bedroom with her daughters and Harris and their son stayed in the back bedroom. After Harris moved into the home, D.T. and Harris did not have "sexual intercourse or sexual relationships" and even though Harris asked "[t]o have sex" with D.T., she told him, "No." D.T. told Harris she never wanted to have sex with him.

In December 2022, D.T.'s normal work hours were from 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. She would usually sleep "about four, five hours at the most" during the day. On December 7, she had worked the prior night and was asleep around 1:00 p.m. when she woke up to find a rope around her neck and Harris on her back. Harris was saying he loved her "a lot." D.T. pulled the rope up; Harris pulled the rope tighter, and the rope ended up getting "stuck around" D.T.'s mouth. D.T. did not want to have sex with Harris and she told him to stop. With the rope in her mouth, D.T. was trying to scream for help and for someone to call the police. At one point, Harris slapped D.T. on the side of her head.

Harris let go of the rope when D.T. told him she would "let him have sex" with her. D.T. had rolled onto her side and tried to get Harris off her. Harris took one of her pant legs off and tried to "kiss [her] in [her] private areas." Harris tried to force her legs open. D.T. tried to fight Harris off and put her hands over herself to stop him from kissing her private areas. Before Harris tried to put his mouth on her vagina, he pressed his unerect penis onto the back of her hand while she was covering her vagina.

In videotaped interviews with two different police officers on the day of the incident, D.T. told the officers Harris had placed his mouth on her vagina. After hearing these interviews, D.T. testified at trial she had already told the officers her hands were over her vagina, and she assumed the officers understood her hands were covering her vagina when he placed his mouth there. D.T. suffered swollen lips and cuts around her inner mouth, as well as a cut on her ear lobe from the incident.

"[Q]uite a few times," prior to the incident, D.T. slept in her car outside her house to avoid Harris's sexual advances. On one occasion, sometime in November 2022, D.T. woke up to Harris tapping on the car's window with a black handgun. Harris opened the unlocked car door, pointed the gun at D.T., and pulled the trigger. Nothing happened. Either before or after this incident, Harris told D.T. the gun was a "pepperball gun." D.T. was not aware Harris had any real firearms, batons, or collapsible batons in the house.

In the past, Harris had been mostly verbally abusive to D.T. and they had "pushing altercations." Harris has also hit her, "many times," usually on the head. Harris has never threatened to kill her, but has told her they were still married, so she was "obligated to have sex" with Harris and if she did not, "then he would take it."

Harris and D.T.'s two daughters, H.H. and S.H., were present during the incident on December 7, 2022. Both daughters recalled Harris would live with them off and on, and on the date of the incident, he had been living with them for a few months. On December 7, H.H. was asleep in the bedroom she shared with D.T. when she was woken up by Harris who told her to get out of the room. H.H. saw D.T. awake, lying face down with Harris lying on D.T.'s back. H.H. also saw a rope around D.T.'s neck and Harris was choking her with it. H.H. was scared and did not want to leave D.T. because Harris was "mad at [D.T.]." D.T. told H.H. to stay, but since Harris told H.H. to leave a "bunch of times," H.H. got scared and left.

H.H. went into the living room where she heard D.T. telling Harris to "get off of her," and she "'can't breathe.'" H.H. panicked and went outside where she heard D.T. yelling to "'[g]et off [her]'" and "'[h]e's trying to rape me.'" H.H. also heard Harris say, "'I'm going to hit you.'" D.T. asked H.H. to call 9-1-1 twice. H.H. texted her sister, S.H., who was outside in the car listening to music. H.H. texted S.H. that Harris had told H.H. to leave the bedroom, and he was on top of their mother. Both daughters went inside the residence and H.H. heard D.T. say, "'[p]lease don't do this.'" D.T. kept saying, "'I can't breathe.'" S.H. heard her mother yelling to call 9-1-1, so the daughters called 9-1-1.

After calling 9-1-1, H.H. heard D.T. yell, "'[h]e's trying to rape me.'" H.H. and S.H. went into D.T.'s room to warn Harris the police were there. When H.H. entered the room, she saw D.T. lying on her back and Harris at D.T.'s feet. Harris's mouth was on D.T.'s vagina. H.H. was in the room for a "second," and she only saw D.T. from the side. H.H. could not see where D.T.'s hands were at this point. S.H. recalled seeing Harris on top of D.T. and D.T.'s pants were partially off.

According to H.H., Harris often kept his bedroom door locked. H.H. knows Harris has an airsoft gun and a baton "or a thing that you can use to hit somebody with" as she has seen him with them before and she has seen ammunition in their home.

Prior to December 7, 2022, H.H. has also seen Harris get angry at D.T. and he would yell and push D.T. S.H. did not recall Harris punching D.T. before the 7th of December. While she did not remember telling a police officer during her interview that Harris had punched D.T. 60 times, she did remember telling the officer there have been approximately 60 times where Harris has hit D.T. in the past.

Riverside County Deputy Sheriff Alberto Martinez Alonzo responded to D.T.'s residence on December 7, 2022. Upon arrival, Alonzo contacted D.T. who was "distraught" and crying. D.T. had "abrasions," "swelling to her face," especially around the jaw, swelling to the ear, and red marks around her neck.

Photos depicting Alonzo's observations of D.T.'s face and neck were shown to the jury.

Alonzo and another deputy sheriff, "Deputy Jackson," thereafter interviewed D.T. D.T. did not tell Alonzo she had covered her vagina so Harris could not put his mouth there. D.T. told Alonzo Harris had performed oral sex on her for about 10 to 20 seconds.

As part of the investigation of the December 7, 2022 incident, Riverside County Deputy Sheriff Mark Hardin interviewed S.H. S.H. told Hardin she heard D.T. screaming, "'Call 911,'" and "'Get off me.'" S.H. also told Hardin when she entered D.T.'s room, she saw Harris with "a rope on [D.T.'s] neck." S.H. indicated her parents did not get along and she has seen Harris punch D.T. about 60 times. D.T. was never the instigator during these incidents; it was always Harris.

As part of the investigation, Hardin searched the room identified as Harris's and found two "rapidly expandable or collapsible" batons, a loaded firearm, and a bag of shotgun shells. According to Hardin, the two batons are illegal to possess unless you are specifically permitted to own them under the law.

The parties stipulated Harris suffered a felony conviction in 2019, and as a result, he was prohibited from possessing a firearm or ammunition.

The batons, firearm, and shotgun shells were shown to the jury.

At the time of trial, Riverside County Sheriff's Department Investigator Samantha Siaw had investigated domestic violence cases for five years; she was part of a "patrol-level program specializing in domestic violence response." She has received specialized training in domestic violence and provided training to other law enforcement personnel on "domestic violence cases, victimology, [and] what makes domestic violence unique and challenging from a law enforcement perspective to investigate." Siaw does not know Harris and did not investigate his case.

In her experience, domestic violence is unique because it involves a highly emotional relationship, and every situation is different. Sometimes victims of domestic violence are "very willing and eager to cooperate" because they have decided "enough is enough, and they want to make changes, or they're ready and feel safe to make changes in their circumstances." In many cases, however, victims may be communicative in the beginning and then they no longer wish to participate in the investigation. Based on her familiarity with studies pertaining to domestic violence, Siaw described a "cycle of violence" evident in these cases. The first phase of this cycle being a "tension-building phase" where victims describe walking on eggshells and having anxiety waiting for abuse to occur. The second phase is some sort of "incident" which "can be any manner of things that are violent in nature" perpetrated by the abuser. The third phase is reconciliation, where the abuser seeks to reconcile with the victim through actions or things such as gifts, promises, and sexual intimacy. The fourth phase is a period of calm. The time periods for each cycle varies with the individual. Children who witness this type of abuse can also be a part of the victim's cycle.

Siaw described the domestic violence relationship as one of power and control wherein the abuser may use common tactics over the victim to gain this control. Such tactics may be "things like intimidation, male privilege, using children, minimizing, denying, [and] blaming." If these tactics do not work, then the abuser may resort to physical and sexual violence to gain power and control. The use of non-fatal strangulation is "significant in abusive relationships because it's an intimate way for someone to gain physical control over another ...."

Riverside County Sheriff's Department Investigator Juan Andrade, who was a part of the sexual assault investigation involving D.T., interviewed Harris at the sheriff's department on December 7, 2022. During the interview, Harris said he and D.T. had been married for almost 20 years, but had been separated for about a year. He said he had been living with D.T. and their children for the last couple of months as D.T. had asked him to move back in with her.

The interview was audio and video recorded and played in two segments for the jury.

On December 7, 2022 Harris remembered one of his daughters walked into the bedroom when he and D.T. were engaged in sexual activity. Harris's penis was not in D.T.'s vagina and he did not recall attempting to orally copulate her.

Harris stated D.T. never told him to stop and he did not force himself on her; he was "just kinda kissin' around areas." Harris told Andrade he did not know anything about a rope and never used a rope at all. He then said he did have a rope during the incident but wanted to use it to smack D.T.'s buttocks; he stated he never held a rope around D.T.'s mouth or neck.

Later in the interview, Harris told Andrade a rope was hidden in the back of his underwear. He further stated he did not remember using the rope, but also said he had put the rope on D.T.'s mouth. Harris indicated D.T. had not wanted to be with him and did not want to have sex with him that day. Harris just wanted to be with her. He reiterated D.T. did not tell him she did not want to have sex on December 7; she has told him so in the past. Harris also indicated D.T. never told their daughters to call the police on December 7. Harris thought, "in a way," D.T. wanted to have sex with him on December 7 as she helped him pull her pants down. He thought they were going to play "rough" during sex as they had done previously. Harris said he intended to use the rope to tie her hands.

Andrade interviewed Appellant again on the same date. During this interview, Harris initially denied possessing a ".22 gun" police officers had found in his room, but later stated the gun was his. Harris explained he had the gun to protect his family as he has been threatened by someone in the past. Harris denied ever pointing an "Airsoft gun" or the .22 gun at D.T. to scare her. Harris acknowledged he was not supposed to possess a gun.

DISCUSSION

Harris's appellate counsel suggests we consider whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the admission of Harris's statements to law enforcement and the testimony of Siaw, the prosecution's expert on domestic violence.

Harris objected to the admission of his statements to Andrade during his interview on December 7, 2022. He argued his statements to Andrade were inadmissible as they were coerced and therefore involuntary. Citing to the video and audio recording of Andrade's interview of Harris, Harris asserted Andrade kept Harris, who was deprived of sleep, in a room with two officers during the interview. Harris also argued Andrade made promises to help Harris if he told Andrade the truth. Additionally, because there were a couple of times when Andrade cut Harris off from speaking, Andrade did not allow Harris the opportunity to possibly invoke his right to remain silent or have an attorney during the interview. The trial court reviewed the video and audio recording as well as the corresponding transcript of Harris's interview. Although the court noted there were statements "about promises and other things like that," after a review of relevant case law, it found the statements "do not cross a line as far as forming a promise," or any type of "bartering," "nor is there any sufficient evidence of intimidation or coercion of that nature."

The burden is on the prosecution to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the voluntariness of a defendant's confession. (People v. McCurdy (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1063, 1086.) "A confession that is obtained through threats or violence, direct or implied promises, or improper influence may be found involuntary." (In re Anthony L. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 438, 452.) The voluntariness of a confession "'depends upon the totality of the circumstances.'" (People v. Linton (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1146, 1176 (Linton).) On review, the trial court's factual findings as to "the circumstances of the interrogation are reviewed for substantial evidence, and its determination of whether police activity was coercive is subject to independent review." (In re Anthony L., supra, 43 Cal.App.5th at p. 452.) Where the defendant's statement is recorded in full, we review the voluntariness of the confession independently. (Linton, supra, 56 Cal.4that pp. 1176-1177.) We have reviewed the entirety of Harris's recorded interview and conclude there was no error in finding his statements admissible.

A statement is involuntary if the defendant's "'will was overborne'" at the time he confessed. (People v. Battle (2021) 11 Cal.5th 749, 790.) While coercive activity by the police is a prerequisite to establish an involuntary confession, "it 'does not itself compel a finding that a resulting confession is involuntary.'" (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 404.) The defendant's statements and inducement "must be causally linked." (Id. at p. 405.)

Considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding Harris's interrogation, we cannot say the evidence is sufficient to show his will was overborne. Additionally, as the trial court acknowledged, Andrade told Harris if he talked it could help Andrade explain the circumstances of the December 7 incident to his supervisor. However, Andrade also later tells Harris Andrade has to "put everything together" and is not "gonna make any promises ...." Even if we were to consider Andrade's statements an implied promises, the totality of the evidence "fails to show that they were the 'motivating cause' of [Harris's] subsequent admissions and confession." (Linton, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 1177.)

In addition to his statements to Andrade, Harris objected to the testimony of the prosecution's expert witness, Siaw. "'The trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether to admit or exclude expert testimony . . . and its decision as to whether expert testimony meets the standard for admissibility is subject to review for abuse of discretion.'" (People v. Duong (2020) 10 Cal.5th 36, 60.) Expert opinion testimony "'"'will be excluded only when it would add nothing at all to the jury's common fund of information, i.e., when "the subject of inquiry is one of such common knowledge that men [and women] of ordinary education could reach a conclusion as intelligently as the witness."'"'" (People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658, 756.)

Harris argued Siaw's testimony was irrelevant. However, the prosecution sought the admission of Siaw's testimony to explain why a domestic violence victim may opt to stay with the perpetrator and why the victim may "be willing to minimize or cover for him." The prosecutor argued Siaw's knowledge as to domestic violence, the dynamics of such a relationship, and how it affects the way victims behave would help the jury understand D.T.'s actions and the dynamics of the relationship between D.T. and Harris. Finding Siaw's testimony admissible, the trial court noted Siaw's testimony "goes to [D.T.'s] credibility as to the role and nature of the relationship, how she stayed in the relationship, non reporting the previous domestic violence." Based on the evidence adduced at trial, in particular D.T.'s testimony regarding the incident, the trial court properly evaluated the admissibility of the Siaw's testimony. Consequently, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting such.

We have otherwise reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under Wende and Anders, and we find no other arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: GOETHALS, ACTING P.J. DELANEY, J.


Summaries of

People v. Harris

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division
Jun 25, 2024
No. G063240 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 25, 2024)
Case details for

People v. Harris

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT LEE HARRIS, JR., Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division

Date published: Jun 25, 2024

Citations

No. G063240 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 25, 2024)