The California Court of Appeal has upheld the conviction of Philip Christian Mosby for continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14. This decision, filed on November 9, 2026, affects Mosby, who was sentenced to 12 years in prison, and highlights the court's stance on juror removal and the admissibility of expert testimony in child abuse cases.

The case began when a jury found Mosby guilty of continuous sexual abuse of a child, specifically for actions that occurred while he was caring for a young girl, identified as S.D. Mosby appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court made several errors, including the removal of a juror, the exclusion of evidence regarding the victim's father's prior felony conviction, and the admission of expert testimony related to Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS).

The parties involved in this case are the People of the State of California, represented by the prosecution, and Philip Christian Mosby, the defendant. The dispute centers on allegations that Mosby sexually abused S.D. while she was in his care at an in-home daycare run by his spouse, Linda. The case reached the California Court of Appeal after Mosby was convicted in a Solano County Superior Court trial and subsequently sentenced to prison.

During the trial, S.D., who was five years old at the time of the alleged abuse, testified that Mosby had touched her inappropriately while she was in the bathroom. Her parents reported the allegations to the police after S.D. disclosed the abuse to them. The jury deliberated and found Mosby guilty based on the evidence presented, which included S.D.'s testimony and expert testimony about CSAAS.

The court ruled on several key issues raised by Mosby in his appeal. Firstly, the court addressed the removal of Juror No. 11, who did not appear for the first full day of deliberations due to a family obligation. The court found that the trial judge acted within his discretion to remove the juror, stating, "the court's decision to disqualify Juror No. 11 is supported by a demonstrable reality in the record that Juror No. 11 was unable to perform his duty." The court emphasized the importance of maintaining an effective jury and avoiding delays in the trial process.

Secondly, Mosby argued that he should have been allowed to use the victim's father's prior felony conviction for impeachment purposes. The court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this evidence, noting that the convictions were remote in time and not directly relevant to the father's credibility as a witness. The court stated, "the convictions were both remote and isolated and had little probative value."

Lastly, the court upheld the admission of CSAAS expert testimony, which is used to explain common behaviors of child sexual abuse victims. The court acknowledged that while Mosby challenged the reliability of this testimony, California law permits such evidence to assist jurors in understanding the context of the victim's behavior. The court concluded, "the trial court appropriately limited Blacker’s testimony to relevant and admissible CSAAS topics as guided by our Supreme Court and collateral courts."

The ruling from the California Court of Appeal has significant implications for future cases involving child sexual abuse allegations. It reinforces the authority of trial courts to manage jury deliberations and the discretion they have in determining the admissibility of evidence. This decision may also serve as a reference point for similar cases involving the complexities of child testimony and the nuances of juror management.

Moving forward, Mosby has the option to appeal this ruling to the California Supreme Court, although it is unclear whether he will pursue that route. There are no related cases pending that directly connect to this ruling, but the outcome may influence how similar cases are handled in the future.