Stephen Wilson will stay convicted of two counts of oral copulation of his minor step-daughter despite his argument that a Riverside prosecutor misused the word “presume” in closing argument.
The prosecutor had introduced evidence of uncharged sexual offenses they said Wilson committed against his other step-daughter.
“(I)f there’s evidence presented that the defendant touched another child in a lewd or lascivious way which you got the instructions for, then you can presume that he committed the crimes here,” the prosecutor told the jury.
Wilson argued that the prosecutor meant “presume” in the legal sense. If interpreted that way, the jurors must assume that he committed the crimes he was charged for because of the evidence from the other alleged victim.
If that meaning was applied, the Court of Appeal wrote in its published ruling, it would be a misstatement of law.
The Court of Appeal found instead that the jury would have understood “presume” in the common way, meaning an expectation of fact.
The ruling also said that the amount of evidence was so overwhelming that the word, even if misinterpreted, would not have changed the ruling.
Wilson had told his adult son in a recorded telephone call that his 6-year-old victim “was a better kisser than every one of my wives except (one).” He had also told police that he and the victim had kissed each other in their “private areas.”
The child, when she testified at 17 years old, described nine years of sexual abuse.
Police found 51,000 photographs of child pornography and several videos on a computer in Wilson’s trailer.
Case information
Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One, Justice William Dato wrote the opinion, which Presiding Justice Judith McConnell and Justice Joan Irion joined.
Riverside Superior Court Case No. BAF1800877
Appellate Case No. D080920
Retired Judge James Hawkins presided.
Deputy District Attorney Billie Gibson prosecuted. Deputy Attorneys General Colette Cavalier and Kathryn Kirschbaum handled the appeal.
Alex Coolman represented Wilson on appeal under appointment. John Dolan defended him during trial.
Read the ruling here.
