People v. Gomez
Annotate this Case
A police officer testified that during a forensic interview, 14-year-old Doe stated that when Doe was six years old, Gomez, his father, “sucked [Doe’s] penis” and had him suck Gomez's penis. The officer observed Doe call Gomez and recount the incident. Gomez apologized and said he wanted to kill himself. Doe remembered multiple incidents of inappropriate touching. The officer did not describe Doe’s emotional reactions. No other witnesses testified. The probation report did not include information about Doe. Doe's victim impact statement read: “I am many things, but a victim I am not. I am a survivor. ... I will continue to strive in my life reaching my goals ... as all you ever were to me was a setback.” The government argued that noneconomic damages could be inferred. The court stated, “common sense and experience ... tells you what kind of horrific damage is done ... I can only imagine the torment ... for the last ten years and what he’s going to go through for the rest of his life.” The court ordered restitution of $100,000.
The court of appeal reversed, While victims have a right to restitution from criminal defendants (Cal. Const., art. I, section 28) and the law does not require any particular kind of proof to
establish the victim’s losses,” there must be some evidence of the impact of the crime on the
particular victim. There was no such evidence here.
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.