VACAVILLE — A 22-year-old Vacaville man convicted of sex crimes committed when he was 9 or 10 years old had all but one of those convictions overturned Tuesday by the Court of Appeal in San Francisco.
The appellate ruling also doled out criticism for a Vacaville police detective’s interrogation techniques in 2012 when he met with the juvenile, then 17, at the boy’s high school.
The appeals court reversed the rulings of Judge John B. Ellis, saying there was not enough evidence that the juvenile had committed sex crimes when he was 9 years old. The ruling was based upon the legal standard that any touching or molesting is only a crime when it is done with a sexual intent and that a child that young is presumed unable to have such intent.
The juvenile, referred in court records only as “Sean H.,” lived next door to the victim. She was about 6 years old when she was first molested in the summer of 2004 at his home, where his mother was operating a day care center. That was followed by more assaults, one weeks later and another three years later.
The girl in 2012 wrote a note to her mother saying she was suicidal and described what Sean H. had done to her. The mother arranged for counseling and the counselor reported the allegations to Vacaville police.
The appellate court ruled the girl’s description of the third assault showed there was proof Sean H. had acted with sexual intent.
The appellate court ruling upbraided Detective Andrew Talton, calling his tactics “troubling” when he first talked to Sean H. about the accusations. The ruling went on to chastise Talton for directly misrepresenting the law by telling Sean H. that if the girl had consented to the touching, then there was not a criminal act. Talton also said several things that implied Sean H. would be treated with leniency if he confessed to molesting the girl years earlier.
“The interrogation raises serious questions . . .,” the appellate court stated before deferring final comment on whether Talton had violated the boy’s constitutional rights.
Sean H., who had faced a possible 10 years behind bars, will return to court in the future to be resentenced. ..Source.. by Jess Sullivan
No comments:
Post a Comment
We use the Disqus Commenting system, please wait for it to load. Also, comments are moderated, please stick to the issue of the post, as we are trying to have an intelligent, relevant discussion which develops the post. Comments deviating from topic of post will not be posted. Thanks