People v. Cruz CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D083450 · 2025-03-11 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN441033
Trial judge: Anthony J. Campagna
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Laurence D. Rubin (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., Buchanan

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:52Z · confidence high

The trial court instructed the jury that it could consider the charged sex offenses as propensity evidence under Evidence Code section 1108, resulting in a conviction on all six counts. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding it was bound by California Supreme Court precedent permitting such instructions.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Instruction of the jury with CALCRIM No. 1191B allowing consideration of charged offenses as propensity evidence under Evidence Code section 1108. “We agree with Cruz that we are bound to follow Villatoro. (People v. Meneses (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 63, 68.) We therefore find that the trial court did not err by instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 1191B, and we affirm the judgment.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The appellate court correctly identified that it is bound by the California Supreme Court's decision in People v. Villatoro, which explicitly held that section 1108 permits the jury to draw propensity inferences from currently charged sex offenses. As a Court of Appeal, the court lacked the authority to overturn this binding precedent, making the trial court's instruction legally proper.

Authorities

relied: People v. Villatoro (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1152 — Section 1108 permits the jury to draw a propensity inference from currently charged sex offenses, not just uncharged ones.
relied: People v. Meneses (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 63 — Courts of Appeal are bound to follow the precedent established in People v. Villatoro regarding the use of charged offenses under section 1108.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound because it correctly applies the doctrine of stare decisis, acknowledging that the Court of Appeal is bound by the California Supreme Court's ruling in Villatoro. It accurately reflects the legal standard that section 1108 includes charged offenses, thereby validating the trial court's instruction.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:29Z · confidence high

The trial court instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 1191B, allowing it to consider charged lewd-act offenses as propensity evidence under Evidence Code section 1108, and the jury convicted Cruz on all six counts, resulting in a 16-year sentence. On appeal, Cruz conceded the instruction was authorized by People v. Villatoro and raised the issue only to preserve it; the Court of Appeal, bound by Villatoro, found no instructional error and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 1191B that charged sex offenses may be considered as propensity evidence under Evidence Code section 1108 “We agree with Cruz that we are bound to follow Villatoro. (People v. Meneses (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 63, 68.) We therefore find that the trial court did not err by instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 1191B, and we affirm the judgment.”	de novo	correct	agree with court Villatoro squarely holds that section 1108 permits a propensity inference from currently charged sex offenses and approved a modified CALCRIM No. 1191 instruction materially similar to the one given here, which also preserved the reasonable-doubt requirement for each charge. Under Auto Equity Sales, the Court of Appeal is bound by Supreme Court precedent, and Cruz conceded as much; the result follows directly from controlling authority.

Authorities

relied: People v. Villatoro (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1152 — Evidence Code section 1108 permits the jury to draw a propensity inference from currently charged sex offenses, and a modified CALCRIM No. 1191 instruction so informing the jury (while requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each charge) is proper.
relied: People v. Meneses (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 63 — Courts of Appeal are bound to follow Villatoro's holding that charged sex offenses may be considered as propensity evidence under section 1108.
missed: Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450 — Decisions of the California Supreme Court are binding on all lower state courts, including the Courts of Appeal; the opinion invokes this principle through Meneses rather than citing the source directly.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly identifies Villatoro as controlling Supreme Court precedent that directly resolves the only issue raised, and the appellant conceded as much. The memorandum format is appropriate because the issue requires no reexamination of principles, though the court did not separately address the federal constitutional dimension beyond noting it was raised for preservation.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 3/11/25 P. v. Cruz CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D083450

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN441033)

PLACIDO MOLINA CRUZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Anthony J. Campagna, Judge. Affirmed. Laura Vavakin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Christine Y. Friedman and Eric A. Swenson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Cruz seeks reversal of two counts in his six-count child molestation conviction. He claims the trial court erred by instructing the jury that it could consider the charged offenses as propensity evidence under Evidence Code2 section 1108. Finding the instruction proper under California Supreme Court precedent, we affirm. I. In 2023, the Office of the San Diego District Attorney charged Cruz with six counts of lewd acts on a child under 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)). The offenses involved three different victims, occurring between 2008 and 2021. At his 2023 trial, the trial court instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 1191B as follows:

The People presented evidence that the defendant committed the crimes of lewd or lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 as charged in Counts One, Two, Three, Four, Five and Six. If the People have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed one or more of these crimes, you may, but are not required to, conclude from that evidence that the defendant was disposed or inclined to commit sexual offenses, and based on that decision, also conclude that the defendant was likely to commit and did commit the other sex offenses charged in this case. If you find that the defendant committed one or more of these crimes, that conclusion is only one factor to consider along with all the other evidence. It is not 1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion because it “is determined by a controlling decision which does not require a reexamination or restatement of its principles or rules.” (Cal. Stds. Jud. Amin., § 8.1(2).) 2 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Evidence Code. 2 sufficient by itself to prove that the defendant is guilty of another crime. The People must still prove each charge and allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury convicted Cruz of all six counts, and the trial court sentenced Cruz to prison for 16 years. Cruz’s timely appeal followed. II. Cruz claims the trial court erred by instructing his jury with CALCRIM No. 1191B. Cruz argues the instruction improperly allowed the jury to consider the charged offenses as propensity evidence under section 1108. Cruz acknowledges that “in People v. Villatoro (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1152, the California Supreme Court held that section 1108 also permits the jury to draw a propensity inference from currently charged sex offenses and approved giving a modified version of CALCRIM No. 1191, similar to the instruction used in this case.”3 He also concedes “this court is bound to follow Villatoro’s precedent.” Cruz explains that he raised the issue on appeal to request that the California Supreme Court reconsider Villatoro and to preserve his federal constitutional claims for a potential future habeas corpus petition. We agree with Cruz that we are bound to follow Villatoro. (People v. Meneses (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 63, 68.) We therefore find that the trial court did not err by instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 1191B, and we affirm the judgment.

3 “In short, we conclude nothing in the language of section 1108 restricts its application to uncharged offenses. Indeed, the clear purpose of section 1108 is to permit the jury’s consideration of evidence of a defendant’s propensity to commit sexual offenses.” (People v. Villatoro, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 1164.) 3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

RUBIN, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

BUCHANAN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Villatoro S192531 · 2012-07-30