P. v. Samaniego
Jose Alberto Samaniego argues that the trial judge should have told the jury that one of the charges against him, digital penetration of his stepdaughter in violation of Penal Code section 288.7,[1] is a specific intent crime requiring, in addition to the act of penetration, the purpose of sexual abuse, arousal or gratification. But the trial judge did instruct the jury the penetration count required the purpose of sexual abuse, arousal or gratification. He only misclassified the penetration count as a general intent crime, not a specific intent crime. The error, such as it was, was de minimis, and easily harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under the Chapman standard.[2] We affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Samaniego