People v. Waln CA2/3

── People v. Waln CA2/3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/24/26 P. v. Waln CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE THE PEOPLE, B338799 Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. XSEVA158343 SCOTT WALN, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Andrew C. Kim, Judge. Affirmed. Levine, Flier and Flier, Leonard B. Levine; Law Office of Kiana Sloan-Hillier and Kiana Sloan-Hillier for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Gary A. Lieberman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________  A jury convicted Scott Waln of committing a lewd act and a forcible lewd act on two of his former sixth-grade students. On appeal, Waln argues the trial court should have granted his motion for a new trial based on the erroneous exclusion of evidence, because he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and because of the cumulative effect of the errors. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. The charges and trial In February 2023, the People filed an information charging Waln with five offenses against three of his former sixth-grade students, Briana A., Alexis L., and Mia G.1 The People alleged Waln committed a lewd act on a child under age 14 against Briana (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a))2, a forcible lewd act on a child under age 14 against Alexis (id., subd. (b)(1)), and three lewd acts on a child under age 14 against Mia (id., subd. (a)). The People alleged a special circumstance that Waln committed the offenses against multiple victims (§ 667.61, subds. (b), (e)(4)). They also alleged aggravating circumstances that the victims were particularly vulnerable (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(3)) and Waln used a position of trust (id., rule 4.421(a)(11)). a. The People’s evidence The People tried the case to a jury in October and November 2023. We briefly summarize the evidence related to each victim. We discuss the evidence in more detail in other sections of this opinion. 1 We refer to the named victims using their first names and last initials to protect their privacy. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(4), (10).) 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2  i. Briana Waln was Briana’s sixth-grade math and computer teacher in 2017. Briana was failing both classes, and Waln had been pressuring her to improve her grades. One day, Briana went to Waln’s classroom to talk to him about her poor performance on a recent test. Briana and Waln were alone in the classroom. Waln walked over to the door and shut it. Without saying a word, he walked over to Briana and grabbed her right breast with his right hand. Briana was scared and left the room. Briana told her friend about the incident later that day. The friend asked Brent Parsonage—who was the school’s physical education teacher—to talk to Briana. Briana told Parsonage Waln was “acting weird” and “touching her.” Parsonage asked if Waln touched her “where her bathing suit covered.” Briana said yes and pointed to her breast. She was crying. After talki