People v. Vuletic CA6

── People v. Vuletic CA6 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 29, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/29/26 P. v. Vuletic CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, H051214 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 23CR001740) v. MIODRAG VULETIC, Defendant and Appellant. In 2023, Miodrag Vuletic was convicted of 28 counts of sexual abuse involving three children and sentenced to a total of 95 years to life in prison. In this appeal, Vuletic challenges on several grounds the testimony of the prosecution’s expert on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS) as well as three jury instructions. As explained below, we find no error or abuse of discretion and therefore affirm the judgment. I. BACKGROUND A. The Underlying Conduct At the time of trial, Vuletic was 71 years old. He owned an auto repair shop and occasionally let F.V., a friend, work there. (To protect the privacy of the victims, we use initials to refer to their fathers. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(4), (11).)) F.V. was the father of two young girls, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, who were born in 2008 and 2010 respectively. J.M. also was a long-time friend of Vuletic, and he had a young daughter, Jane Doe 3, who was born in 2011. Both F.V. and J.M. frequently allowed Vuletic to interact with their daughters. In addition to paying F.V. for his work at the auto repair shop, Vuletic occasionally paid F.V.’s bills or lent him money. F.V.’s wife also occasionally worked for Vuletic, and Vuletic often took the whole family out for lunch or dinner. Vuletic treated F.V.’s daughters like grandchildren, buying them presents such as bikes, a scooter, and video games, and when F.V. worked at Vuletic’s shop, he often brought Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, who would go to Vuletic’s office, play games with him, play on his computer, walk his dog with him, or go with him to a small group of trees near the shop. One evening in December 2020, F.V. and Jane Doe 2 were at Vuletic’s shop when F.V. noticed that his daughter was not in Vuletic’s office and looked for her. He found her with Vuletic in a camper van, playing a computer game on Vuletic’s phone. Vuletic’s face was close to Jane Doe 2’s as if he were about to kiss her, and her jacket was rippling as if he were touching her. F.V. yelled his daughter’s name, and Vuletic backed away. F.V. then approached his daughter and asked if Vuletic had been touching her under her jacket. Jane Doe 2 said yes. Vuletic was silent. After F.V. returned home, he asked his older daughter, Jane Doe 1, if Vuletic had been touching her. Jane Doe 1 said yes. Several days later, F.V. reported the abuse to the police. Around the same time, F.V. contacted J.M., who had a daughter, Jane Doe 3, a year younger than Jane Doe 2. Like F.V., J.M. sometimes would go to F.V.’s auto repair shop and bring his daughter, who would play with Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 if they were there. Otherwise Jane Doe 3 would play with Vuletic on his computer and look at the high-end cars in his shop. 2  After J.M. separated from Jane Doe 3’s mother, Vuletic began to come over to J.M.’s house out of the blue and say he wanted to watch a movie or have dinner. Vuletic would do so when J.M. had Jane Doe 3 and her brother, and Vuletic wou