Facts
- Michael David Cornett sexually molested his two stepdaughters and was convicted of seven felony sex offenses.
- One count charged oral copulation of Jane Doe 1 under California Penal Code § 288.7(b), which applies when an adult engages in specified sexual conduct “with a child who is 10 years of age or younger.”
- At the time of the charged § 288.7(b) offense, Jane Doe 1 was 10 years and approximately 11 months old.
- The trial court imposed a sentence of 50 years to life on the § 288.7(b) count and stayed it under Penal Code § 654.
- The Court of Appeal reversed that count, construing § 288.7 to cover only conduct occurring before or on the child’s 10th birthday.
- The California Supreme Court granted review to determine the meaning of “10 years of age or younger” in § 288.7.
Issues
- Whether “10 years of age or younger” in Penal Code § 288.7 includes a child who has reached the 10th birthday but not the 11th birthday.
- Whether the statute is limited to children molested before or on the day of their 10th birthday.
Decision
- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal to the extent it set aside Cornett’s § 288.7(b) conviction involving Jane Doe 1.
- The Court held that “10 years of age or younger” in § 288.7 includes children who are 10 but have not yet turned 11.
- The Court concluded the statutory phrase is another way of saying “under 11 years of age.”
- Because Jane Doe 1 was under 11 at the time of the offense, Cornett’s § 288.7(b) conviction was proper.
Legal Principles
- In Penal Code § 288.7, “10 years of age or younger” means under 11 years of age, including children from their 10th birthday up to (but not including) their 11th birthday.
- Statutory language is interpreted in context and according to ordinary usage; describing a child as “10 years old” remains accurate until the child turns 11.
- The rule of lenity does not apply where the statute, read in text, context, and ordinary meaning, is not genuinely ambiguous.
Conclusion
The court construed Penal Code § 288.7’s age element to cover any child under 11, rejecting a reading that would exclude children after their 10th birthday, and reinstated Cornett’s § 288.7(b) conviction involving a 10-year-11-month-old victim.