People v. Abate CA2/6

── People v. Abate CA2/6 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 19, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/19/26 P. v. Abate CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B342494 (Super. Ct. No.23F-00265) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County) v. NATHAN DANIEL ABATE, Defendant and Appellant. Appellant Nathan Daniel Abate challenges his convictions of forcible rape (Pen. Code1, § 261, subd. (a)(2)), rape of an intoxicated person (id., subd. (a)(3)), and oral copulation with a person under age 18 (former § 288a, subd. (b)(1) renumbered to § 287, subd. (b)(1) (stats 2018 ch. 423 § 49 (SB 1494) effective January 1, 2019)). He contends we must reverse his convictions because the trial court erroneously excluded relevant evidence, improperly answered the deliberating jury’s question, and the 1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. errors were cumulatively prejudicial. We disagree and will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND After one woman posted on social media accusing appellant of sexual assault, additional women came forward with similar accusations. They alleged that on multiple occasions between 2008 and 2013 appellant and his friend invited young women and underage girls to their house, gave them alcohol, and raped them. Appellant was charged by information with two counts of forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2); counts 1 (victim A.) & 2 (victim L.), rape of an intoxicated person (id., subd. (a)(3); count 3), and oral copulation with a person under age 18 (former § 288a, subd. (b)(1) now § 287, subd. (b)(1); count 4). Appellant was convicted by jury in counts 2, 3, and 4. The trial court declared a mistrial for count 1 after the jury failed to reach a verdict. The court sentenced appellant to an aggregate prison term of eight years, eight months. DISCUSSION Exclusion of Defense Expert Testimony Appellant contends the court abused its discretion by excluding expert witness testimony regarding motivations for false accusations of sexual assault. He asserts the evidence was relevant “to help the jury evaluate the complaining witnesses’ credibility” and testimony regarding motivations for making false allegations is “logically no different than having an expert testify about the common behaviors” of child sexual abuse victims. Appellant is wrong. “A trial court’s decision to admit evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” (People v. Lapenias (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 162, 170.) Its “‘findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, and its 2 application of the law to the facts is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious.’” (Ibid.) We will not “substitute our discretion for that of the trial court.” (Id. at p. 174.) Defense counsel sought to introduce expert testimony regarding motivations for making false allegations of sexual assault. At a pretrial evidentiary hearing, the expert testified that based on research women may be motivated to make false allegations of sexual assault for sympathy, attention, to win a child custody case, because of personality disorders, or to escape the consequences of poor choices. The trial court ruled the testimony inadmissible because it was not sufficiently beyond common experience to be helpful to the jury