Friday’s Frolicking Teen in Trouble

This week’s Friday Favorite is about a 17-year-old boy who was arrested Wednesday after allegedly crashing a sport utility vehicle into a Torrance house. He was allegedly the driver of a Chevrolet Blazer which apparently spun out of control and went in backward, landing about ¾ inside the house! Not only did he flee the scene leaving the car in the house, he also abandoned two passengers in the sport utility vehicle. The crash created a 12-by-12-foot hole in the wall of the house on the 2100 block of Cabrillo Avenue in Torrance.

The teenager is being held on suspicion of felony hit-and-run. In California, there are two types of hit-and-run offenses; misdemeanor and felony. A misdemeanor hit-and-run charge is where the defendant left the scene of the accident, without first identifying himself to the other party involved, and another’s property was damaged in the accident. Felony hit-and-run, however, is concerned with injury. That is, a defendant may be charged with the felony if someone was injured.

One of those teen passengers abandoned in the sport utility vehicle had to be cut from the wreckage. Both passengers were taken to hospitals for treatment.

California law requires that in a case such as this, the teenage driver should have provided to the homeowners/occupants his identifying information at the scene of the crash along with the identifying information of any injured passengers. The same information should have been given to any on-scene law enforcement officers. This information would have to include the name and current address of the car’s owner, since here the teenager was driving someone else’s car.

The law also requires that the teenager provide reasonable assistance to any injured person in order to help secure medical attention. This could be as simple, and reasonable, as arranging for transportation for any injured passenger who obviously needs or requests medical help. That is, calling 911 or getting an occupant of the home to transport the injured passengers to a hospital.

By leaving the Torrance house crash scene without first checking if anyone was hurt, the teenager is inviting an aggressive hit-and-run prosecution. The prosecution would have to prove that the defendant was involved in an accident that resulted in injury to another, that the defendant knew an accident had occurred, that the defendant knew either someone was injured or that the accident was of such a nature that it was probable that another was injured, and that the defendant willfully failed to perform one or more of the duties mentioned above.

A “willful” act means that the defendant intended to act (or nor act) as he did. The prosecution would argue that knowingly leaving the scene of an accident, without exchanging information, and without attempting to render “reasonable assistance” – intending to do so – would be acting willfully.

Possible defenses for the 17-year-old would be that he was not in fact the driver. This could be tricky since there are two passengers who will probably identify him as the driver assuming they did not suffer memory loss as a result of their injuries. The teenager’s legal defense team could also argue that he had no reason to know there were any injuries. This would be the case if he knew there was an accident but he wasn’t hurt, the occupants of the house said no one was hurt, and the passengers said they were not hurt. Unfortunately, the teenager would have had to provide his identifying information before leaving the scene.

If convicted of felony hit-and-run, a defendant would face a fine of $1,000 to $10,000 and either up to one year in county jail or sixteen months or two or three years in the California State Prison, restitution if the victims injuries were caused or exacerbated by the fact the defendant left the scene, and two points on the driving record.

In this case, if the teenager is charged as a minor there are a number of different dispositions available in juvenile court – informal probation all the way up to commitment to the California Youth Authority (prison for minors). However, because of his age, seventeen, being so close to adulthood, the prosecution may forgo juvenile court altogether.

You can read the story here.

Friday Fondling

This Friday we focus on a story about a 62 year-old Palos Verdes Estates man who was rearrested this week. He was charged last month with fondling two teen boys he invited to live in his house, and was arrested again on Tuesday on suspicion of molesting two more teenagers.

This Palos Verdes Estates man played himself off as a doctor to gain the teenagers’ trust. As a “doctor” he touched their intimate body parts, allegedly. The teenagers were 18 years old at the time. He is facing five misdemeanor counts of sexual battery and child molestation from his arrest last month.

Apparently, this 62 year-old man rented his homes in Rolling Hills and Palos Verdes Estates where the alleged sexual acts took place. He would invite his grandson’s friends to live in the houses by either paying rent or staying there for free. One teen moved in with the older man after his own parents through him out of the house. The teenager claims that the Palos Verdes Estates man cornered him in the shower and sexually assaulted him. The new arrest earlier this week was as a result of teenagers reading about the November arrest then coming forward to identify themselves as victims.

Now the 62 year-old Palos Verdes Estates man is facing an additional four counts of felony sexual battery by fraud – fraud for telling the teenagers that he was a doctor.

Felony sexual battery in California is an act committed for sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse. and is the non-consensual touching of the intimate part of someone who was unconscious as to the nature of the act because he/she was fraudulently convinced that the touching was for professional purposes. California sexual battery, in contrast to California rape, does not require that the offender engage in penetration or sexual intercourse.

California felony sexual battery has an additional requirement that you touch the "bare skin" of the accuser's intimate part. "Fraudulently" means that you made the representation with the intent to deceive and mislead the alleged victim.

Classic defenses are consent or insufficient evidence. In this case, any defense attorney would argue consent and against the fraud aspect. Since these teenagers were 17 or 18 years-old it would be unreasonable for them to believe that the defendant was acting as a doctor in his own home. They would also know from life experience what is appropriate touching in a medical setting and what isn’t. Therefore, a failure to object to the touching could be argued as consent. Otherwise, insufficient evidence is always a good defense where there is no medical evidence. This story sounds like a he-said-he-said scenario. The prosecution cannot rely solely on the victims’ testimony, but needs to bring in corroborative evidence to strengthen the case. That may be very difficult to do.

This will certainly unfold in an interesting way because the victims are not the traditional, impressionable and young victim. These are teenagers that are almost into young adulthood. They will certainly be grilled by defense attorneys regarding “consent.”

Read the story here.

Friday Favorite: Beefing up Security in San Pedro

I am excited to see that San Pedro leaders are taking matters seriously in downtown San Pedro. This week, leadership in San Pedro announced that after a recent spike in thefts, they want to bring in more security features such as lighting up alleys and installing security cameras in downtown San Pedro. It is probably seriously necessary since one outstanding incident occurred when an individual yanked a chain off a customer eating lunch at the Jolly Burrito!

For those individuals committing the thefts, the beefed up security would mean an increased chance in getting caught. A California theft related conviction can be particularly harmful to those defendants in seeking employment or state licensing in this already tough economy. Theft convictions are still harmful even after being expunged because they will arise after background checks when applying to state or federal agencies, or when applying to the state for any kind of license or certification.

Most California theft offenses are considered “crimes of moral turpitude;” and are often cited by state license boards as a reason to deny licenses and certifications. Even more harmful are the effects of a theft conviction for immigration purposes, where an individual is seeking a visa, green card or naturalization to the United States. A crime of moral turpitude could subject a defendant in this country illegally to deportation, and denial of naturalization or revocation of a visa or residency status.

The good news is that a first time petty theft where the item taken has a value less than $50, can sometimes be reduced to an infraction. In some D.A. offices, this deal will only apply if the item taken was a food item and there are other extenuating circumstances. This deal is probably reserved for transients and run-away teenagers living on the streets. The prosecution, in first offense cases, where the defendant has no criminal record, will sometimes consider dismissing the charges if the defendant repays the victim, undergoes theft counseling and performs community service.

A petty theft is normally a misdemeanor; however when there is a prior history of petty thefts then the prosecution can charge a new petty theft as a felony. Petty theft applies to taking property valued up to $950. Taking an item with a value over $950 can be charged as felony grand theft. From the article highlighting the new security measure in downtown San Pedro, it is clear that most crimes are probably petty thefts, characterized as “snatch-and-run” thefts.

It is great to see that San Pedro is trying to build a better downtown community and image. It has a lot to offer to its residents and visitors. Hopefully, these new measures will reduce any and all crimes in downtown San Pedro.


You can read the article about the new San Pedro security measures 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.

A True Black Friday for this Felon

This Black Friday when you are pushing, shoving, jumping, and committing other Olympic feats to get to the hot-ticket items, remember this story and purchase extra security for your new “toys.” This Friday is a dark, dark Friday for a 22-year-old San Pedro man who is in custody for residential burglary. Detectives tracked him down using the “Lojack for Laptops” software on the laptops he stole from a Rancho Palos Verdes home.

It seems that this San Pedro man decided he just couldn’t wait for Black Friday deals and took matters into his own hands. He was identified as an unlicensed contractor who had done work at the victim’s home two months earlier. The security software was able to gather personal information, including his name and photograph once he logged into the computer. Now, that is pretty crafty of modern technology.

The article states that the police were able to convince him to bring the laptop to the Lomita Sherriff’s station, where he was then promptly arrested. Now, let me just make it clear what this means. The Sherriff’s officers are not brilliant negotiators; when an article says any officer “convinced” a defendant to come down to the station it means one of two things. The officer lied to the defendant somehow, prompting the defendant to head over to the station; or the officer threatened the defendant with arrest if he didn’t cooperate. Sometimes, there is a combination of both.

Earlier in our Friday series, I spoke about commercial burglary. The San Pedro man allegedly stole from a residence making the crime here residential burglary. Residential burglary is the more serious of the two types. A defendant commits residential burglary if he burgles any inhabited dwelling - a place where someone lives or sleeps. A dwelling is "inhabited" if it is used for dwelling purposes, whether or not it is currently occupied. A prosecutor has to prove that the defendant entered the dwelling and that, at the time he entered; he had the intent to steal.

Again, there is the sticky situation of “intent.” Any good defense attorney will latch on to this element, especially in this laptop case. Absent any other evidence, it's just as likely that the San Pedro man didn't form the intent to steal until after he was already inside the home. This is a prime case for theft, not residential burglary because when a defendant formed the intent to steal is the key difference between burglary and theft.

In this case, the prosecution is really going to have to nail down a timeframe for the defendant’s action. The prosecution will need to show something more than just his possession of the laptop. This is because he had a legitimate intent as he entered the home – work – and without more it is too much of a stretch to place intent to steal on him.

If he is convicted of first degree residential burglary, he faces two, four, or six years in the California State Prison and a maximum fine of $10,000. California Penal Code 462 instructs the judge not to issue a probationary sentence if he was convicted of burglarizing an inhabited structure unless it is an "unusual case where the interests of justice would be best served by doing so". Here, if the prosecution doesn’t reduce the charge to theft, then a judge should grant probation. This is because this is not a typical residential burglary – not at night, not with weapons, and not a “break in.” Either way, the San Pedro man faces a strike on his record.

This is an unfortunately black Friday for the San Pedro man. He really should have waited for the shopping deals on Black Friday. Instead, is in custody without bail because of his immigration status. However, this is an important Thanksgiving lesson – be thankful for modern technology and make sure to equip your important electronic toys with security software.

You can read the story of the Rancho Palos Verdes laptops stolen by the San Pedro man here.

Friday Family Feud: Child Abduction Charges

This week’s story is about a Lomita family and the child caught in the middle. The boy was in the legal guardianship of his paternal grandmother, which his mother apparently doesn't approve of. His biological mother, with the help of her parents, abducted the boy from his stroller. This happened while the boy’s relative was pushing the stroller he was in, down the street. Now, the biological mother and her parents didn't just run up and grab the boy. They verbally and physically confronted the relative before leaving with the boy.

Deputies were able to contact the biological mother and her parents, and convince them to return the boy. Of course, they were then arrested and released on bond. They will likely be facing charges of Penal Code 278, California's child abduction law. The child abduction law prohibits people who do not have legal custody over a child from maliciously trying to keep a child away from his/her legal parent/guardian. Since the biological mother and her parents did not have legal custody of the child, they can be charged with child abduction.

Child abduction is just a specially recognized form of kidnapping. California's kidnapping laws, found under Penal Code 207, 208, 209 and 209.5 PC, are violated when the defendant moves another person a substantial distance without that person's consent by using force or fear. “Force or fear” means inflicting harm or threatening too. "Simple" kidnapping is a felony, subjecting you to up to 8 years in the California state prison.

The biological mother and her parents are going to rely on the many defenses available to kidnapping. One defense is that the alleged victim consented to being moved. This is an obvious defense because a child will consent to going anywhere with his mother. The problem here is we do not know how old the child is, and typically children are deemed incapable of giving legal consent. They may also allege that they have the right to travel with the child. This would only be the case if the child custody order included such a travel provision. Otherwise, that defense may be a loser.

The biological mother and her parents could also allege that the prosecution will not be able to meet all the elements of kidnapping, especially as to force or fear. This goes back to a child wanting to go with his mother, no force or fear needed. A problem with this defense is that, when kidnapping a child, the only amount of physical force that is required is enough to take and carry the child away. Another problem they have is that they verbally and physically confronted the relative who had the child. This could be interpreted by the prosecution and a jury as being enough force or fear (threats of harm) to meet the elements of kidnapping.

The parents of the biological mother could have the best defense by asserting they were not the kidnapers but were merely present. The key here is where they were when the biological mother took the boy. Were they standing nearby, or just sitting in the car? If they were not aware of the biological mother’s plans, and they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, then they should be acquitted. This could explain why they returned the boy, because they never intended to take him.

The last applicable defense could be a stretch to apply here, but there is a statutory defense where a defendant would not be guilty of kidnapping if the defendant took the child under 14 years of age to protect the child from danger of imminent harm. The biological mother and her parents would have to show that the relative pushing the boy in the stroller posed imminent danger to the boy. Without knowing more about the situation, all I can say is this will be tough to win.

Child abduction is a wobbler, which means it can be charged as either a misdemeanor or felony. As a felony, it subjects the defendant to a maximum four-year state prison sentence and a maximum $10,000 fine. If convicted of child abduction and kidnapping, the judge could order defendants to serve this sentence in addition and consecutive to the time imposed for the kidnapping charge. Simple kidnapping is a felony, punishable by three, five or eight years in the California state prison, and a maximum $10,000 fine.

Lastly, Simple kidnapping qualifies as both a serious felony and a violent felony. This means a conviction for violating California's kidnapping law counts as a "strike" for purposes of California's three strikes law. If defendants are subsequently charged with any felony - and have a prior "strike" on their record - they will be referred to as a "second striker," and the sentence will be twice the term otherwise required by law. If charged with a third felony - and there are two prior strikes - defendants will be referred to as a "third striker" and will serve a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years-to-life in the state prison. That is a lot to face, and a lot to lose to get your biological child back.


Read the news story here.

Friday Favorite Flirty Criminals

This week’s favorite is about a flirty but dangerous mother-daughter team. This mother daughter duo allegedly conned a 90-year-old El Segundo man to give them $20,000 and to buy them a Mercedes-Benz. Police believe this duo likes to run cons and take advantage of elderly people. The mother was arrested this week, but the daughter remains at large, so be careful who you flirt with this weekend at the bars. The 29-year-old daughter is known to frequent areas in and around Harbor City, Downey, and Riverside.

The 90-year-old man was also conned into buying the duo a $2,000 mattress. They would also take him into banks, and tell him what to do, in order to get their money. The mother-daughter team was discovered after employees at an El Segundo Bank of America considered it suspicious that a 90-year-old man said he was withdrawing money to give it to someone but couldn’t remember their names.

The duo are facing charges for felony elder abuse and felony conspiracy to commit elder abuse. California "elder abuse" law covers a variety of crimes and can occur in a variety of situations. In this situation, elder abuse will be alleged to be in the form of financial fraud. It is considered “elder abuse” when it is directed at anyone over 65 years of age. The Los Angeles District Attorney's Elder Abuse Unit only prosecutes allegations of financial elder abuse if the monetary amount reportedly taken is either in the "thousands of dollars" range or involved a very sophisticated level of fraud or theft. Well, too bad for this mother-daughter team. They should have aimed low…..or not have defrauded an elderly man to begin with. ;)

Simply put, financial elder abuse is the theft or embezzlement of money or other property from an elder. This type of senior fraud is penalized in California Penal Code sections 368(d) and 368(e). In order to convict a defendant of senior fraud, the prosecutor must prove the following facts: 1) that defendant committed a "financial" crime (that is, theft, fraud, forgery, or embezzlement), 2) that the property involved in the crime belonged to an elder, and 3) in this case, that defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the individual was an elder.

The mother-daughter duo is going to face an uphill battle in their defense. It appears that the 90-year-old man is a very confused man. He doesn’t remember giving away that much money or even purchasing those expensive vehicles.

As for the conspiracy charge, a criminal conspiracy takes place when one agrees with one or more other people to commit a crime, and one of them commits an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. Any member of the conspiracy may commit the overt act which doesn't need to be criminal in and of itself. The act does need to be performed before the commission of the agreed upon offense. Maybe the daughter can argue that she never agreed with her mom to fraud this old man. She was just a victim of her mom too; she should utilize many available defenses to conspiracy.

Some of these defenses include: there was no agreement, there was no overt act, she withdrew from the conspiracy, she operated under a mistake of law, or she was falsely accused. Again, it will be tough for prosecutors to prove an agreement between mother and daughter. This will be especially tough if the daughter was never seen at any of the banks or the car dealership.

If they are convicted of committing felony conspiracy to commit elder abuse they face the same penalties that are imposed in connection with that felony. If convicted of felony senior fraud (“elder abuse”), they face the following penalties: formal probation; two, three, or four years in the California State Prison; and a maximum $10,000 fine.

In conclusion, that must have been some intense flirting by the duo with the elderly man. They got him to give them thousands of dollars in cash and gifts! Whether you are young or old, beware of these two.