The California Court of Appeal has affirmed the conviction of Avery Stancil, who was found guilty of intercourse or sodomy with a child aged 10 years or younger. The court's decision, filed on October 21, 2026, addresses several key issues raised by Stancil regarding his trial and jury selection process. This ruling has significant implications for how courts handle jury selection and the admissibility of witness testimony in sexual assault cases.
The case began when Stancil was charged in February 2023 with serious sexual offenses against a minor, specifically under California Penal Code section 288.7, subdivision (a). The victim, referred to as Jane Doe, testified against him, and the jury ultimately found him guilty. Stancil was sentenced to 50 years to life in prison, prompting his appeal.
Stancil's appeal raised three main arguments. First, he contended that the trial court wrongly denied his objection to the prosecutor's peremptory challenge of a Black prospective alternate juror, Ms. Wilson-Rosa. Second, he argued that the court erred in allowing a witness's preliminary hearing testimony to be read into the record after deeming her unavailable. Lastly, he claimed that the court incorrectly refused to qualify a defense witness as an expert on plea bargaining. The appellate court ultimately rejected all of Stancil's arguments.
The court's ruling specifically addressed the peremptory challenge issue. Stancil's defense argued that the prosecutor's decision to exclude Ms. Wilson-Rosa was racially motivated, violating section 231.7 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which prohibits peremptory challenges based on race or other protected statuses. The prosecutor, however, provided several reasons for the challenge, including Ms. Wilson-Rosa's lack of understanding regarding the relevance of prior allegations in sexual assault cases, which the court found to be a valid concern.
The court ruled, "In looking at the totality of all of the circumstances, I do not find that there’s a prima facie showing that Ms. [Wilson-Rosa] was peremptorily challenged for an improper reason."
The court's opinion emphasized the importance of considering the totality of circumstances when evaluating peremptory challenges. The ruling also noted that the trial court must evaluate the reasons given for such challenges and explain its findings on the record. In this case, the court found substantial evidence supporting the trial court's determination that the prosecutor's reasons for excluding Ms. Wilson-Rosa were not based on her race.
In addition to the peremptory challenge issue, the court addressed the admissibility of preliminary hearing testimony. Stancil argued that the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of a witness from a previous case to be read into the record after declaring her unavailable. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, stating that the testimony was relevant and admissible under the circumstances.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond Stancil's case. It reinforces the standards for evaluating peremptory challenges in California and clarifies the conditions under which prior testimony can be admitted in court. This decision may influence future cases involving similar issues, particularly in sexual assault trials where the credibility of witnesses and jurors' perceptions are critical.
Moving forward, Stancil's options for further legal recourse are limited. While he can seek to appeal the decision to the California Supreme Court, it is unclear whether such an appeal would be successful. As of now, no related cases are pending that could directly affect this ruling.