## Facts

- Chi Van Pham, a chiropractor, treated three female patients (including a 13-year-old) who sought care for accident-related injuries.
- Patients completed intake and consent forms warning that certain procedures could be uncomfortable or embarrassing.
- During office visits, Pham maintained a professional demeanor and presented his actions as chiropractic adjustments or physical therapy.
- In multiple sessions, Pham touched patients’ intimate parts—such as breasts, buttocks, and the pubic/genital area—while framing the touching as part of treatment.
- One patient testified that Pham massaged and cupped her breasts, including under clothing, and on a separate occasion unbuttoned her jeans, placed his hand inside her underwear, and touched her genitals for about 30 seconds.
- The patients testified they felt uneasy or confused but believed the touching served a medical purpose because it occurred in a treatment setting and was portrayed as therapeutic.
- A jury convicted Pham of sexual battery by fraud under California Penal Code § 243.4(c) on multiple counts.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence was sufficient to prove sexual battery by fraud under Penal Code § 243.4(c) when a health-care provider’s professional presentation caused patients to believe intimate touching was for a legitimate medical purpose.
2. Whether the statute applies when the victim acquiesces to the touching because the provider’s conduct and setting conceal the sexual nature of the act.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and upheld Pham’s convictions.
- The court held the evidence supported a finding that the patients were unaware of the sexual nature of the touching because Pham fraudulently represented (expressly and implicitly) that the touching was for a professional purpose.
- The court concluded the jury could infer fraud and the victims’ lack of awareness of the act’s sexual character from the totality of the circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- Sexual battery by fraud under Penal Code § 243.4(c) may be established when the victim submits to intimate touching because the perpetrator fraudulently represents the touching as professionally necessary, rendering the victim unaware of the act’s sexual nature.
- Fraudulent “professional purpose” representation may be shown through the professional setting and trappings of treatment, pre-treatment forms, the practitioner’s demeanor, and how the conduct is framed during the encounter.
- Sufficiency of evidence may be evaluated under a totality-of-the-circumstances approach, permitting the fact-finder to infer fraud where objectively sexual intimate touching is presented as medical care and the patient relies on that representation.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed convictions for sexual battery by fraud, holding that a practitioner’s professional façade and treatment context can constitute fraudulent representation of a “professional purpose” when it causes patients to submit to intimate touching without understanding its sexual nature.


People v. Pham, 180 Cal. App. 4th 919, 103 Cal. Rptr. 3d 366 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)