# People v. Rodriguez

> California Supreme Court · July 22, 2002 · 122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 348

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9796635

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE LUIS RODRIGUEZ, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 22, 2002
- **Citations:** 122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 348; 28 Cal. 4th 543; 2002 Daily Journal DAR 8139; 49 P.3d 1085; 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6541; 2002 Cal. LEXIS 4824
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wergegar
- **Judges:** Chin, Moreno
- **Cited by:** 28 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9796635

## Opinion text

*551 WERGEGAR, J., Concurring.
I write separately to clarify my position with respect to a point of disagreement between the majority and our concurring and dissenting colleague. I disagree with the concurring and dissenting opinion’s implication that the statutory term “recurring access” would be reasonably understood by jurors to denote such intermittent “access” as is necessarily implied by discrete instances of actual contact. (See cone. & dis. opn., post, at p. 554.) I join the majority, rather, in its determination that the term’s commonly understood meaning is “an ongoing ability to approach and contact someone time after time.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 547, italics added.) As the majority correctly points out, “not every person who manages to molest a child three times during the requisite period necessarily would have an ongoing ability to approach and contact the child time after time.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 550.) Accordingly, not every person who manages to molest a child three times during the requisite period necessarily would be guilty of violating Penal Code section 288.5, and the concurring and dissenting opinion errs to the extent it suggests that a reasonable juror could conclude otherwise. (See cone. & dis. opn., post, at pp. 554-555.)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9796635. Public record. Not legal advice.