 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Hinzo3/10/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Appellant Alex Gilbert Hinzo was placed on felony probation after a jury convicted him of sexual battery by restraint. (Pen. Code, § 243.4, subd. (a).) He contends: (1) there was no evidence of restraint sufficient to support his felony conviction; (2) the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of a prior bad act under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b); and (3) the trial court should have granted his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
We affirm.
FACTS
L.J. has a history of depression. On March 10, 2000, her roommate called the police because she had discovered a strange note by L.J. and believed L.J. to be suicidal. L.J. did not come home until early the following morning. Her roommate called the police to notify them that L.J. had returned.
Two officers came to the residence, and L.J.'s ex-husband also arrived. The officers called the Mental Health Assessment Team (MHAT) to determine whether L.J. was a danger to herself and needed to be placed in a locked psychiatric facility for a 72-hour commitment. The MHAT paramedic who arrived was appellant, who was employed by American Medical Response (AMR).
Appellant introduced himself to L.J. and asked her some questions about her mental state. He told her that she needed to cooperate with him and that he was the person who would determine whether she should be detained; L.J.'s roommate and ex-husband also urged her to cooperate. After completing the interview, appellant said he was going out to his truck to call his boss. When he returned, he told L.J. she could remain at home if she agreed to see a counselor. Everyone left and L.J. went to bed.
Later that afternoon, L.J. awoke and discovered a message from appellant on her answering machine. She called him back and he asked her to meet him at a nearby Carrow's restaurant to fill out some paperwork. She did not want to go to the restaurant because she did not look good and had been crying, but she agreed to meet him because she did not want to go to a psychiatric ward.
L.J. drove her car to the Carrow's parking lot and agreed to go to the AMR paramedic station to fill out the paperwork. Appellant drove them both in his company car. Once at the station, he showed her around and asked her some questions before taking her into a den area. One of appellant's co-workers was present, but left after a few minutes. Appellant and L.J. sat on a couch and he began to rub her neck, shoulders and head.
Appellant told L.J. to lie down and she complied. He lay directly behind her and she felt what might have been an erection. He put his hands inside her shirt and began fondling her breasts. When L.J. asked what he was doing, appellant said he was just trying to make her feel better. She told him she was uncomfortable and he removed his hands, but later put them back inside her shirt and began fondling her breasts again. Appellant removed his hands when she told him to stop. He told her she had a nice body and commented on her sexy underwear, which surprised L.J. because she did not think he could see what she was wearing under her sweat pants. Appellant then led her into a bedroom and drew the blinds after telling her to lie down. She turned away when he tried to kiss her. They left the room after they were interrupted by someone coming into the station. App
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|