This Friday: Teens Defacing Property

This week there is a $2,000 reward out for information leading to the individuals who vandalized Peninsula High School in Rolling Hills Estates by spray-painting obscenities and a swastika on the grounds. Fifty lockers were also cut open and their contents scattered all over the floor. Some of the spray painted graffiti included “PV” and “Sea Kings”, leading to speculation that the vandals are teens from rival Palos Verdes High School. Benches, windows, walls and brick were spray painted.

California vandalism and graffiti law prohibits “defacing, damaging, or destroying someone else’s property.” The prosecution must prove that the defendants 1) defaced with graffiti or other inscribed material, damaged, or destroyed another person’s property, 2) that defendants did so maliciously, and 3) that the amount of the defacement, damage, or destruction was either less than $400 for a misdemeanor prosecution, or $400 or more for a felony prosecution.

In the case of the high school vandals, the vandalism appears on presumably public property. In this case, the judge or jury will presume that the defendants neither owned the property nor had permission to deface, damage, or destroy it. Defendants act “maliciously” under the law if they acted for the purpose of annoying or injuring another person, or acted to intentionally commit a wrongful act.

The type of case the defendants will face is based on the value of the damage they caused. If the cost to repair or replace the defaced, damaged, or destroyed property is less than $400, prosecutors will charge them with misdemeanor vandalism. If the cost is $400 or more, prosecutors have a choice of charging a misdemeanor or a felony.

However, in the case of the actions against Peninsula High School, prosecutors can add the acts together to charge defendants with a felony if the aggregate amount totals $400 or more. The prosecutors have to first show that all the acts were part of the same intention, impulse and plan. The vandalism at Peninsula High School happened at time near a basketball game against Palos Verdes High School. It will not be too difficult for prosecutors to show that the intention, impulse and plan of all the acts was to show “PV High” pride on the eve of a basketball game.

The only defense any defendant has here (in the Peninsula High vandalism) would be mistaken identity. Unless there are witness willing to come forward, or cameras in the school hallways, it will be difficult to pinpoint the actual individuals who acted here.

Although not the case here, vandalism can also be charged as an infraction where the cost of damage of less than $250 and it is the defendant’s first vandalism. If the defendant is convicted of misdemeanor vandalism the punishment is informal probation, up to one year in county jail, a maximum fine of $1,000, a California driver’s license suspension of up to two years, and counseling services. Included in the punishment is community service; or personally cleaning, repairing, or replacing the damaged property; or keeping the damaged property or another property in the community graffiti free for up to one year. The judge may require the parents of a defendant under the age of 18 years old to help fulfill these conditions.

If the amount of the damage is $400 or greater, and the defendant is convicted of felony vandalism, the defendant faces a maximum fine of $10,000; up to one year in county jail or up to 16 months, or two or three years in state prison, and the same probation conditions as misdemeanor vandalism.

Read the story here.

Friday Story: Faculty and Sex Charges

Sorry for a late entry this week.

This week’s story is about a Peninsula High School teacher in Rolling Hills Estates who plead not guilty to sex charges. He was a dance teacher and he is accused of engaging in sexual conduct with a 16-year-old female student. More specifically, the charges are five counts of oral copulation with a minor and one count of digital penetration with a minor. The acts actually took place four years ago. The female student is now a young adult, but she came forward to the police detailing acts that took place with the teacher in 2006 and 2007 when she was 16 years old.

The acts that she detailed and the charges indicate the real seriousness of the offense. Oral copulation with a minor is the act of touching of the mouth of one person with the sexual organ of another person. Oral copulation with a person under 16 years old carries a punishment as a felony with imprisonment in state prison for up to 3 years. Digital penetration with a minor is the act of causing the sexual organ of another person to be penetrated by a foreign object – in this case “digital” means the defendant’s digits (fingers). Digital penetration with a victim under 16 years old carries a punishment as a felony with imprisonment in state prison for up to 3 years.

The prosecution’s entire case is at the mercy of the victim’s credibility. This is especially so because she waited four years to tell anyone. It will be interesting to learn what her motivation was to come forward now. A good defense attorney will want to subpoena the accuser's school, counseling, and medical records, interview his/her family, friends, schoolmates, and those she chats with online, and conduct a thorough background check on the accuser and any alleged witnesses. Sometimes, investigations reveal that the accuser has a bias and motive to harm the accused and that the accuser has a history of being untruthful and telling lies about other people as well.

If the acts actually took place, then one defense would be that the defendant had a good faith belief the accuser was 18 or over. The accused will be found not guilty if he reasonably and actually believed that the other person was age 18 or older. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably and actually believe that the other person was at least 18 years old. If the prosecution has not met this burden, the accused will be found not guilty. This may not be too difficult for the prosecution since at the time the accuser claims to be 16 she was also in high school as a junior. Defenses that are not available here would be consent or that the defendant and accuser were in a relationship.

You can read the story here.