(Super. Ct. No. 08F05505)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Butz J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 a bench trial, the trial court convicted defendant Salvador Garrola Salazar of one count of engaging in sexual penetration with a child 10 years old or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b)), and sentenced him to a state prison term of 15 years to life.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred prejudicially in failing to suppress two statements that defendant made to the police, and in admitting into evidence the victim's statements to a forensic nurse and to his father.
We shall affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The victim, G.G., was five years old at the time of trial. In June 2008, when G.G. was four, he lived with his father (Gerardo), mother (Maria), sister (Nancy), and uncle (defendant).
On June 12, 2008, both of G.G.'s parents had to go to work. Normally, when Maria went to work, she would drop both G.G. and Nancy off at school, but on this day, G.G. refused to stay at school. Maria took him back home where she left him with her brother, defendant. Defendant and G.G. were the only ones at the house until G.G.'s father, Gerardo, came home from work.
When Gerardo arrived home, G.G. went to him and said that defendant had done something to him in the back. G.G. said defendant's name, the word blood (in Spanish), and pointed to his rear end. At the time, Gerardo did not give much thought to G.G.'s statements and took G.G. with him to pick up Nancy from school. When Gerardo and his two children returned home, Maria was there too; defendant had left the house.
G.G. went to his mother and told her that defendant had done something to him in the back, that blood had come out, and that defendant had cleaned it off. G.G. also told his mother that he was in pain. Gerardo and Maria then looked at G.G.'s rear end and could tell he had been hurt, and they feared he had been abused. G.G.'s parents took him to the hospital but were told they needed to file a police report before an examination could be conducted. The parents took G.G. home, filed a police report, and took him to be treated the next day; he was treated by a pediatric nurse practitioner, Cathy Boyle.
Nurse Boyle, when treating children who are suspected victims of child abuse, examines the child from head to toe, an examination which she performed on G.G. The purpose of this exam is to "identify and treat" injuries the child may have sustained. During Boyle's exam of G.G., she asked him whether he had any "owies"; G.G. said yes and pointed to his rear end. Nurse Boyle asked "who did that?" and G.G. said defendant's name.
After conducting the full body exam, Nurse Boyle reported that G.G. had a large laceration in his anal area and that it was a very recent injury. Furthermore, Boyle indicated that G.G.'s injury was consistent with penetration by an object larger than one finger.
As will be explained in detail in the discussion, on July 3, 2008, defendant made an incriminatory statement to the police. Four days later, defendant made another such statement.
I. Defendant's July 3, 2008 Statement ...