People v. Ibarra CA2/3

── People v. Ibarra CA2/3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 08, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/8/26 P. v. Ibarra CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B337097 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA106571) v. ANTONIO IBARRA, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Darrell Mavis, Judge. Affirmed. Theresa Osterman Stevenson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Ryan M. Smith, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.  ‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗ A jury convicted defendant and appellant Antonio Ibarra of sexual penetration by force and kidnapping. On appeal, Ibarra contends the evidence was insufficient to identify him as the perpetrator of the crime. He further argues the court erred in failing to clarify the burdens of proof in its response to a jury question and in failing to sua sponte instruct the jury on false imprisonment as a lesser included offense of kidnapping. We affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2020, the People filed an information charging Ibarra with two counts of sexual penetration by force (Pen. Code, § 289, subd. (a)(1)(A);1 counts 1 & 2) and one count of kidnapping with the intent to commit a violation of section 289 (§ 209, subd. (b)(1); count 3), as well as several enhancements and special allegations.2 In November 2023, the case was tried to a jury. The People’s Evidence A. Jeanette K. In July 2018, Jeanette K. lived in a house in Pasadena that shared a driveway, parking area, and laundry room with an adjacent fourplex apartment building. The laundry room was behind the carport at the back of the property. It was accessible through a narrow walkway between the back of Jeanette’s house and the carport. The laundry room locked from the outside. The lock was “difficult to close.” The rear of the property was 1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 The court ultimately dismissed count 2 and the related enhancements pursuant to section 1385. 2 enclosed by a fence and a wall separating it from the neighboring property. On July 15, 2018, Jeanette was doing laundry at 2:30 a.m. Because the motion detector lights outside the laundry room were not working, it was “pitch dark.” She was standing in front of the laundry room when she noticed a man at the end of the walkway just beyond her parked car. At trial, Jeanette testified that the man was six feet to six feet, two inches tall and somewhere between 180 and 200 pounds. She did not recognize him. Jeanette asked the man who he was. The man turned around and asked her who she was. Jeanette told him she lived there and was doing laundry. The man said he “ ‘live[d] here in the front apartments’ ” and was also doing laundry. She told the man she had a lot of laundry left to do, so he would be waiting a while. He said that was okay, and he had time. Jeanette decided to try to pass the man on the walkway and return to her house. As she moved forward, the man also walked forward toward her and the l