## Facts

- A 25-year-old married flight attendant lived in a commuter apartment complex in Burlingame, California.
- At the complex pool, she met Luciano Ramirez, who spoke with her for several hours while both drank alcohol.
- After the pool closed, she drove with Ramirez to buy rum and soda, then drove to his apartment where they continued drinking and talking.
- The complainant testified that Ramirez became sexually aggressive, ignored her objections, and assaulted her, supporting convictions for assault with intent to commit rape, attempted rape, and sexual battery.
- Ramirez, a previously convicted sex offender, was also charged with and convicted of failing to register as a sex offender.
- Before trial, the defense received the complainant’s true name in discovery.
- At trial, the court permitted the complainant to be referred to as “Jane Doe” under Penal Code § 293.5 and instructed the jury the pseudonym was used to protect her privacy.
- No juror indicated recognizing the complainant.

## Issues

1. Whether Penal Code § 293.5, permitting a sex-offense complainant to be identified by a pseudonym at trial, is unconstitutional on its face or as applied.
2. Whether using “Jane Doe” and the related instruction impaired meaningful voir dire and the right to an impartial jury.
3. Whether withholding the complainant’s true name from the jury violated confrontation and cross-examination rights.
4. Whether instructing that the pseudonym protected the complainant’s privacy lessened the prosecution’s burden of proof or undermined the presumption of innocence.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
- The court upheld the constitutionality of Penal Code § 293.5 and approved its use in this case.
- The court found no violation of the rights to confrontation, due process, or an impartial jury from referring to the complainant as “Jane Doe” where the defense knew her identity.
- The court rejected the claim that the privacy instruction suggested guilt or reduced the prosecution’s burden when read with the full set of burden-of-proof and presumption-of-innocence instructions.

## Legal Principles

- A statute allowing a sex-offense complainant to be referred to by a pseudonym at trial is constitutionally permissible when the defense has the witness’s true identity for investigation and cross-examination.
- The Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not a right to have the jury hear the witness’s true name where nondisclosure does not impair the defense’s ability to test credibility.
- A limitation associated with pseudonymous identification does not establish an impartial-jury/voir-dire violation absent a concrete showing of prejudice (e.g., inability to uncover juror familiarity or actual bias).
- A brief instruction explaining the privacy purpose of a pseudonym does not reduce the prosecution’s burden of proof when the jury is otherwise properly instructed on reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Ramirez’s convictions and sentences, holding that using “Jane Doe” under Penal Code § 293.5, while providing the defense the complainant’s true identity and permitting full cross-examination, did not violate confrontation, due process, or fair-jury guarantees.


People v. Ramirez, 55 Cal. App. 4th 47 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)