Filed 5/28/21 P. v. Inouye CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A159513 v. (San Mateo County Super SCOTT MICHAEL INOUYE, Ct. No. 18NF011459) Defendant and Appellant. Defendant Scott Michael Inouye appeals from a judgment of conviction after a jury trial for eavesdropping and dissuading a witness. The offenses involved his surreptitious audio-video recordings of sexual interactions between him and a tourist from South Korea, Jane Doe, after he met her while working as a customs and border protection officer at the San Francisco airport. Defendant makes two claims on appeal: that the trial court prejudicially erred by admitting evidence of his job because his work was not relevant to the charges against him and unduly prejudiced the jury under the circumstances of the case, and that the court erred at sentencing in requiring him to pay two assessments as a condition of probation. We affirm the judgment, except that we remand to the trial court to clarify that the assessments are imposed separate from, and not as, the conditions of probation. 1 BACKGROUND In June 2019, the San Mateo County District Attorney filed an information charging Inouye with three counts of eavesdropping (Pen. Code, § 632, subd. (a)1) and one count of attempting to dissuade a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(2)). The charges were based on his repeated recording of his sexual interactions with Jane Doe without her knowledge or consent and, when Doe discovered the recordings and reported them to the police, his repeated suggestions that she falsely tell the authorities that she consented to the recordings in order to have the matter against him dropped. I. Evidence Presented at Trial A. Inouye and Doe Initiate a Sexual Relationship. The parties disagreed at trial regarding Inouye’s intent but did not dispute most of the facts. On June 21, 2018, Doe arrived at San Francisco’s airport from South Korea to visit the area on vacation. Inouye, then a customs and border protection officer working at the airport, processed Doe’s entry into the United States. She gave him the information he requested, including her contact information for a Korean messaging application. He messaged her later that day, and they met away from the airport that evening and exchanged messages daily thereafter. A few days later, on June 24, Doe visited Inouye’s apartment in San Bruno. They had sexual relations that night, after which she showered in his bathroom. At trial, she identified a video recording of her showering and testified that it was recorded without her knowledge or consent. 1All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless stated otherwise. 2 Doe stayed with …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals