California v. Jimenez
Annotate this CaseThe victim, Jane Doe, was at a friend’s house drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana and methamphetamine. She had been “high” on methamphetamine for the past three days. Jane Doe left her friend’s house and walked to defendant’s apartment. Defendant was Jane Doe’s uncle. When Jane Doe arrived at defendant’s apartment, she greeted him, ate some food, called a friend, and fell asleep on the couch. She next remembered waking up in a dark bedroom on defendant’s bed, on her side, with defendant behind her. She felt his hand under her shirt and bra, touching her bare breast. Her pants were down below her knees and she felt something inside her vagina. When Jane Doe moved away, she heard defendant say, “It was okay.” She pushed defendant, screamed, ran outside, and went downstairs and knocked on the door of a downstairs neighbor. A jury would find defendant Dario Jimenez guilty of felony sexual penetration of an unconscious person and misdemeanor sexual battery. On appeal, defendant contended the trial court committed prejudicial error in giving CALCRIM Jury Instruction number 105 because it was legally erroneous, lacked evidentiary support, and created a “ ‘permissive inference’ ” and “ ‘false impression’ ” that the victim’s character for truthfulness was good. Disagreeing, the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.