Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People v. John Scott Sigle

September 9, 2011

THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
JOHN SCOTT SIGLE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



(Super. Ct. No. 08F05949)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Raye , P. J.

P. v. Sigle

CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

A jury convicted defendant John Scott Sigle of the continuous sexual abuse of a child. (Pen. Code, § 288.5, subd. (a).) The court sentenced defendant to state prison for the upper term of 16 years.

Defendant appeals. He contends (1) the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting propensity evidence and (2) the trial court improperly imposed a no-contact order. The People concede that the no-contact order was imposed in error. We agree and will order the judgment modified, striking the no-contact order. We reject defendant's remaining contention and will affirm the judgment.

FACTS

From 1996 to 2001 defendant lived with B.D.'s family. When defendant moved into the family home, B.D. was four or five years old and defendant was in his mid-20's, working for B.D.'s father. Defendant was considered a member of the family. When no one was home or family members were in another part of the house, defendant had B.D. sit between his legs, and he would put his hand down her pants and rub her vagina. On two or three occasions when B.D. took a bath, defendant sat or knelt next to the bathtub and rubbed her vagina. About once a week, she would wake up at night and discover that defendant had his hand down her pants and was rubbing her vagina.

When B.D. was six or seven years old, she was sick and stayed home from school. Defendant was home alone with her. As she got dressed to go to the doctor's office, defendant repeatedly asked to put his mouth on her vagina. After repeatedly saying no, she finally agreed. Defendant spread her legs apart and put his mouth on her vagina for about 15 seconds. One time when defendant was in the bathroom, he asked her for some toilet paper. When she delivered it, he opened the door completely so she could see that he had his penis in his hand. She threw the toilet paper at him and left the room. When she grew older, defendant continued to touch her at night but not so much during the day.

B.D. was about nine years old when defendant moved out of the family home. She was relieved but did not tell her family about defendant's behavior for many years. B.D. told her friends when she was in junior high school that she had been molested but did not identify the molester. On Christmas Day in 2007, 15-year-old B.D. finally told her mother that defendant had molested her.

The prosecutor presented propensity evidence. When D.T. was six or seven years old, she met defendant. In 2001, when D.T. was 12 years old and defendant was 30 or 31 years old, defendant began kissing her. When she was 13 years old, they had oral sex about four times a day and sexual intercourse about 12 times per week. D.T.'s father reported defendant to the police. Defendant was arrested and charged with child molestation, but the charge was dismissed when D.T. denied a sexual relationship with defendant. D.T. explained that she had lied because she was in love with defendant, who had asked her to lie.

When D.T. was 14 years old, defendant asked D.T.'s father for permission to marry her. Angry, D.T.'s father screwed D.T.'s bedroom window shut and installed a camera. Defendant removed the camera and screws at night, had sex with D.T., spent the night, and then left in the morning, reinstalling the screws and camera.

At 14 years of age, D.T. became pregnant with defendant's child and gave birth just one month after her 15th birthday. When she was almost 16 years of age D.T. became pregnant again with defendant's child. After this child was born, D.T. admitted to police that she had previously lied about her relationship with defendant. After DNA tests, new charges were filed and defendant was convicted of statutory rape (Pen. Code, ยง 261.5) in July 2007. When D.T. turned 18 years old, her ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.