Thursday, August 13, 2026
Page 1
Denial of Continuance Wipes Out $21.4 Million Judgment
Court of Appeal Says, for Purpose of Guidance on Remand, That Judge Did Not Err in Allowing One Photograph to Be Shown Jury From Each Year When Victim Was Sexually Abused During Her Minority by the Defendant
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Four of the First District Court of Appeal yesterday reversed a $21.4 million judgment in favor of a woman who was sexually abused by her uncle from the time she was in kindergarten or the first grade until she was in high school, holding that it was prejudicial error to deny the defendant a continuance so that—upon learning that a family law judge had just granted access to funds that had been frozen—he could hire an attorney.
For sake of guidance on remand, Justice Jeremy M. Goldman advised that Alameda Superior Court Judge Somnath Raj Chatterjee did not err in allowing jurors to view one photograph of the plaintiff, Mary D., taken in each of the years in which she was molested by her uncle and godfather, Matthew McCauley.
McCauley was convicted by a jury in 2021 of sexual offenses and other crimes. The 2023 unpublished Court of Appeal opinion affirming the judgment relates that he “was convicted of multiple sexual offenses, providing drugs to minors, and possession of assault rifles.
The lawsuit followed the conviction by about two months. He was sentenced to prison and remains there.
Collateral Estoppel
Goldman recited that it is established that “an indigent, incarcerated person who is sued in civil court has equal protection and due process rights to meaningful court access so they can defend their interests.” He noted, however, that there are cases “in which the incarcerated person is collaterally estopped to relitigate issues decided against them in their prior criminal trial….”
He wrote:
“McCauley was not asking that counsel be appointed for him. Rather, having just learned that the family court had finally signed an order granting him access to some of his funds to hire a lawyer to represent him, he was seeking a continuance that would have allowed him to do so. There is no doubt…that this was a case in which an attorney would have been helpful.”
Triable Issues
The justice continued:
“Although his conviction collaterally estopped him to relitigate some issues in the civil case, other issues would be litigated….Counsel might not have advised contesting every one of them, but the jury had to decide whether McCauley’s acts were a substantial factor in causing Mary D. harm; whether his conduct was outrageous; whether he intended to cause Mary D. emotional distress; whether she suffered emotional distress; what were the amounts of her past noneconomic damages, future noneconomic damages, and future economic damages; whether McCauley acted with malice or oppression; and what amount of punitive damages, if any, was appropriate.”
Punitive damages were awarded by the jury in the amount of $5 million. Past noneconomic damages were set at $10 million, future noneconomic damages at $6 million and future economic damages at $350,000.
Rejecting McCauley’s contention that in light of his financial circumstances, no punitive damages are awardable, Goldman said that “Mary D. is entitled to retry all issues, including punitive damages.”
Use of Photographs
McCauley argued that there was no dispute as to the child’s age at the time of the assaults and that the photographs were not useful, and that they should have been excluded under Evidence Code §352 because the prejudicial effect outweighed any probative value. Goldman responded:
“Information about a child’s age by number of years is more abstract than a photograph that offers concrete visual details that can help a juror understand the child’s developmental stage at that time. Here, these visual details were particularly useful given that the plaintiff sitting before the jurors in the courtroom was then a young adult. Further, we agree with Mary D. that her ages, and the related developmental stages, during the time that McCauley abused her were relevant to whether McCauley acted with malice, to whether his conduct was outrageous, and to the physical pain, mental suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, grief, anxiety, humiliation, embarrassment, worry, and emotional distress that she suffered in the years of abuse.”
He added:
“We are unpersuaded that the photographs presented a danger of undue prejudice that would warrant their exclusion under Evidence Code section 352. They were limited to one for each year. And, as Mary D. notes, they were not selected for an emotional response….They do not, for example, show her playing with toys or a pet or hugging a family member or a friend…..We conclude that the photographs’ potential for prejudice did not substantially outweigh their probative worth.”
The case is Mary D. v. McCauley, A170749.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company