California v. Oliver
Annotate this CaseDefendant James Oliver challenged his convictions for human trafficking Jane Doe (count 1) and D.A. (count 4), and his sentence. On appeal, he contended: (1) his conviction on count 4 for human trafficking an adult in violation of Penal Code section 236.1 (b) should have been reversed there was no substantial evidence D.A. did not consent; (2) his conviction on count 4 had to be reversed because the trial court erred by not instructing the jury sua sponte on the element that D.A. did not consent to her restraint or confinement; (3) his conviction on count 1 for human trafficking a minor in violation of section 236.1 (c) had to be reversed because the trial court erred by permitting the State to admit hearsay evidence of Jane Doe’s age at the time of the alleged offense; and (4) during sentencing, the trial court erred by not considering his present ability to pay various fines and fees, as mandated by California v. Duenas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (2019), so those fines and fees should have been stricken and the matter remanded for a hearing on his ability to pay. The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding the lack of the victim’s consent was not an element or an affirmative defense of the offense of human trafficking an adult in violation of section 236.1(b); the record contained substantial evidence from which a jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant trafficked D.A.; and defendant forfeited his claim of Duenas error with respect to the maximum restitution fine imposed at sentencing, and his claims of reversible error about other fines and fees lacked merit. Furthermore, the Court concluded the trial court accurately instructed the jury on human trafficking as alleged in count 4; defendant forfeited his claim of evidentiary error on count 1 by not timely and specifically interposing a hearsay objection below; and his trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to so object.
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.