The California Court of Appeal has upheld the conviction of Balaji Balu, who was found guilty of committing ten lewd acts on a minor under the age of 14. The court's ruling, filed on October 30, 2026, confirms the trial court's decision to sentence Balu to 24 years in prison. This case highlights the complexities surrounding the prosecution of sexual offenses that occurred decades prior, as well as the legal standards for corroborating evidence in such cases.

Balu's conviction stems from allegations made by two young women who claimed they were sexually abused by him during their childhoods. The prosecution was able to bring charges against Balu despite the significant time that had elapsed since the alleged offenses, thanks to California's statute of limitations that allows for such cases to be prosecuted if reported within a year of disclosure to law enforcement.

Background

The case began in 2021 when the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office filed a complaint against Balu, alleging that he committed sexual offenses against A. and K., two cousins who were minors at the time of the abuse. The alleged incidents occurred between January 1988 and January 1991, when the victims were between five and eight years old. The prosecution argued that the charges were timely under California Penal Code section 803(f), which permits prosecution if there is independent corroborating evidence and the victim reports the crime within a year.

A. reported the abuse to police in 2020, motivated by the death of Balu's father, who had also been accused of abuse. Following her report, K. also disclosed that she had been abused by Balu. The prosecution presented testimony from both women, along with corroborating evidence from family members and a child protective services report from the early 1990s.

The Ruling

The California Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court did not err in its instructions to the jury regarding the corroboration standards required under section 803(f). Balu argued that the jury should have been instructed that the opinions of mental health professionals could not be used as corroborating evidence. However, the court found that Balu failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different verdict if properly instructed. The court stated, "Balu has not carried his burden to show a reasonable probability the jury would have returned a different finding if it had been properly instructed."

The appellate court also addressed Balu's claims regarding the standard of proof for corroborating evidence, finding that the trial court's instruction for a "clear and convincing" standard did not violate his due process rights. The court noted that California law has established that the statute of limitations is a substantive right, but it does not constitute an element of the offense that requires a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

Impact

The ruling has significant implications for similar cases involving delayed reporting of sexual abuse. It reinforces the legal standards for corroborating evidence in child sexual abuse cases and demonstrates the court's commitment to upholding convictions based on credible testimony, even when the alleged crimes occurred decades prior. This decision may encourage other victims of childhood sexual abuse to come forward, knowing that there are legal frameworks in place to support their claims.

The case also highlights the importance of jury instructions in ensuring that jurors understand the legal standards they must apply when evaluating evidence. The court's ruling affirms that jurors can consider uncharged acts of sexual abuse as corroborative evidence, as long as the prosecution meets the required legal standards.

What's Next

Balu has the option to appeal the decision to the California Supreme Court, although it is unclear whether he will pursue this route. There are no related cases pending that have been publicly disclosed. The outcome of this case may influence future prosecutions of similar nature, particularly in how corroborating evidence is presented and evaluated in court.