P. v. Weaver
A jury convicted Ronald Arthur Weaver of committing a total of six lewd acts upon two children under the age of 14 in violation of Penal Code[1]section 288, subdivision (a): Three upon Alyssa R. (counts 1-3, hereafter the Alyssa charges),[2]and three upon Natalie T. (counts 5-7, hereafter the Natalie charges).[3] The jury found Weaver not guilty of a fourth charged lewd act he allegedly committed upon Alyssa (count 4: touching Alyssa's vagina with his tongue). The jury found true the enhancement allegation in each of counts 1 through 3 and 5 through 7 that Weaver committed an offense against more than one victim within the meaning of section 667.61, subdivisions (b), (c) and (e).
The court sentenced Weaver to a total prison term of 75 years to life, consisting of an indeterminate term of 15 years to life on count 1, a concurrent 15-years-to-life term on count 2, and 15-years-to-life terms on counts 3, 5, 6 and 7, which the court ordered served consecutively to the terms imposed on counts 1 and 2.
On appeal, Weaver contends (1) the court violated his federal and state constitutional rights to due process by denying his motion to dismiss the charges against him, which was based on his claim that he suffered prejudice as a result of a delay in arresting him; (2) the court abused its discretion by denying his motion to sever the charges involving Natalie (counts 5-7) from the charges involving Alyssa (counts 1-4); (3) the court erred in denying his motion to quash the search warrant for his home and to suppress the images of nude female children found on his computer, because the totality of the circumstances "just don't add up to probable cause"; (4) the court (a) violated his state and federal constitutional rights to due process and equal protection by admitting testimony describing the photographs of nude female children seized from his computer to be used as propensity evidence under Evidence Code section 1108; and (b) abused its discretion by admitting those image descriptions under Evidence Code section 352; and (5) the court violated his due process right to be convicted only on proof beyond a reasonable doubt by instructing the jury under CALJIC No. 2.50.01, thereby permitting the jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the computer images were child pornography, and then use those images as proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the charged offenses. Court reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Weaver