Ruling Makes It Easier to Try Molest Cases

The state Supreme Court on Thursday made it easier to prosecute alleged child molesters, ruling that defendants may be convicted even when a young accuser cannot provide the precise times, places or circumstances of the assaults.

In a widely awaited, 5-2 decision, the justices held that a child’s testimony is legally valid as long as it adequately describes the kind of sexual acts committed, their approximate number and the general time period in which they occurred.

“Testimony describing a series of essentially indistinguishable acts of molestation is frequently the only testimony forthcoming from the victim,” Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas wrote for the majority.

“To hold that such testimony, however credible and substantial, is inadequate . . . would anomalously favor the offender who subjects his victim to repeated or continuous assaults,” he said.

The court rejected the contention that child witnesses, because of doubts about their credibility, must testify in greater detail. Recent studies have alleviated concerns that child witnesses are particularly untruthful or susceptible to suggestion, Lucas noted.

In dissent, Justice Stanley Mosk, joined by Justice Allen E. Broussard, argued that the court’s acceptance of generalized testimony from children raised “grave” constitutional concerns. Faced with only general allegations, a defendant can make only a general attack on the accuser’s credibility, they said.

“Unable to cross-examine the child as to the details of the molestation, he can never show . . . that these details render the child’s story physically impossible, or highly unlikely, or contradictory,” Mosk wrote.

The case before the justices emerged in the wake of widespread concern over the sexual abuse of children. In California, 22,000 such cases were reported in 1988. The issues before the court Thursday had arisen in at least a dozen, often-conflicting appellate court rulings.

State Deputy Atty. Gen. Lilia E. Garcia welcomed the ruling as “extremely favorable to our position” and said it would provide badly needed guidelines in future cases. “We had argued that a child should not be required to provide any additional specificity beyond the elements of the crime,” she said. “There had been quite a bit of conflict over this issue.”

The decision represented a second victory in two days for prosecutors in child molestation cases. On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed victims of child abuse to testify without appearing in court, where they could be directly confronted by the accused.

Thursday’s case posed the delicate and complex problem of balancing the constitutional right of defendants to fair notice of the charges against the frequent inability of young victims to provide details of alleged acts.

Such conflicts arise mainly in so-called “resident child molester” prosecutions, in which a defendant lives in a child’s home or has regular access to the child and is accused of repeated acts over a long period.

In the case before the court, Mark E. Jones, a former Navy pilot and schoolteacher from San Diego, was accused of sexually abusing his two adopted sons and two other boys. He denied the charges, saying he had caught the boys performing sexual acts on each other and that he suspected they fabricated allegations of abuse in an effort to cover up their conduct.

Jones was convicted of 12 counts of abuse and sentenced to 15 years in prison. But a state Court of Appeal overturned seven of the counts, four of them on the grounds that testimony by one of the victims was not specific enough as to time and place. That victim, who was 10 at the time of the alleged acts, had testified that the molestations, including oral copulation, had occurred once or twice a month over a 23-month period at five different locations.

The high court, reversing the appeals panel, ruled Thursday that the young victim’s account of the crimes was sufficient for conviction and reinstated the four disputed counts against Jones.

The prosecution of such charges based on relatively general testimony did not, in itself, deny the defendant his right to adequate notice and an opportunity to mount a defense, the justices said.

Lucas, in a 42-page opinion, rejected Jones’ contention that defendants could not present an alibi without knowing the details of the charges as to time and place. Such defenses, the chief justice said, rarely arise in cases where defendants have lived with the victim for an extensive period of time.

Further, the high court said, a defendant still has the opportunity to deny the charges on the witness stand and cross-examine the alleged victim and present character testimony. “If credible, his testimony should prevail over the unspecific assertions of his young accuser,” Lucas wrote.

Jones’ attorney, Gerald Blank of San Diego, expressed disappointment. “The court’s seal of approval on this kind of testimony presents a real danger to our fundamental constitutional structure,” he said.

Although it was not directly at issue, the ruling appeared to imply approval of a state law, enacted last year, creating a new crime of “continual sexual abuse” of children. The law provides for prison terms of up to 16 years when three or more lewd acts are committed over a period of three months or more. Precise testimony from children on circumstances of the crime is not required.

The dissenters acknowledged the majority’s “understandable concern” with the unique problems that arise in cases of resident child molesters. Nonetheless, Mosk said, it was mere “hyperbole” to suggest that requiring greater specificity from child witnesses would unfairly protect accused molesters.