More Teenagers in Trouble: Melee at Carson High School

This week’s news story is about the melee that went down at Carson High School, after which 3 students were arrested and 4 were hospitalized. The fight reportedly involved dozens of Samoan, black and Latino students, and it happened during the morning nutrition break and then again at lunchtime. Three students were arrested on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon.

California Penal Code section 245(a)(1) defines assault with a deadly weapon as an assault that is committed with any type of deadly weapon or by means of force that is likely to cause great bodily injury to another. Fortunately for these students, this code section can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony. That decision is based on three factors, such as the type of weapon or instrument used to commit the alleged assault, whether the person whom the defendant allegedly assaulted sustained an injury (and if so, the severity of the injury), and the nature of the victim (whether the alleged victim is a peace officer or other “protected” person).

In this high school melee 4 students were hospitalized, some with injuries to their abdomen and one student suffered blunt-force trauma. One student witness states that his friend was left on the ground shaking and gasping for air after being repeatedly kicked. The instrument here – feet – is not normally one that would cause a prosecutor to charge a felony. But when the defendant’s feet are used so callously on so many potential victims, there could be a felony charged.

The defendants’ feet are actually not the deadly weapon here, because a weapon is an object and parts of the body are not considered objects. As stated above, the Penal Code section245 charge also includes assault by means of force that is likely to cause great bodily injury to another. The means of force here is the feet used to kick another causing great bodily injury. How the defendants used their feet is the critical question. One kick alone may not suffice to likely cause great bodily injury.

The prosecutor doesn’t even need to prove that a defendant actually injured another person or that the defendant made physical contact with another person. All that matters is that the defendant had the ability and intent to severely injure the other person.

There are several defenses available to the defendants. One defense would be the inability to carry out the assault. Maybe one of the three students arrested wasn’t even in the thick of the fight, so there really was no way for him or her to kick or assault anyone in anyway. Self-defense is another possible defense, though the defendant must have an honest and reasonable belief that bodily injury is about to be inflicted on him, and only counter with as much force as is reasonably necessary to ward off the injury. This defense may not go over as easily as it sounds, especially in this case where the assault on the victim is alleged to have happened while the victim was on the ground defenseless. There doesn’t appear to be any situation in which a person on the ground could be deemed to be attacking a person standing up, especially when the person on the ground is unarmed.

The best defense here, albeit not a great one, would be consent. This is usually the case in situations of mutual combat. However, the victim on the floor being kicked would not likely testify in court that he consented to repeated kicks to the head or abdomen. This defense is best used in situations like fight clubs. The defendants may want to rely on the fact that there is likely insufficient evidence here because the fight involved over 20 students, it would be difficult to pinpoint any assault on any defendant. Witnesses probably didn’t have a clear line of sight to these three defendants out of 20 students.

Lastly, these defendants are high school students so they may have the benefit of having their cases heard in juvenile court. If the juveniles are adjudicated (convicted) of the crime, they will be sentenced at a disposition hearing. Generally, disposition options include “home on probation”, custody at a probation camp, or commitment to the California Youth Authority. This crime in particular can be charged as a felony making commitment to the CYA a likely situation. Ultimately, the judge will try to craft a sentence that will discipline the minors but also help them get the tools necessary to become a productive member of society.


Read the news story here.

Juvenile Court is Different

It is vital to seek the help of an attorney that has experience specifically in juvenile court because it’s a different world. In juvenile court the terminology is different, the procedures are different and even the law can be different. Many defense attorneys practice mostly in adult criminal courts and will from time to time take juvenile cases. These defense attorneys often don’t know about the intricacies of juvenile court that could potentially benefit their client’s case.

Traditional criminal defense attorneys who do not have a focus on juvenile court would not know that “status offenses” like truancy and curfew violation are considered criminal acts when committed by juveniles. The first sign of an attorney who is not dedicated to juvenile criminal court cases is an attorney who refers to cases as “convictions” instead of “adjudications.” Technically, juvenile court is not part of the California criminal law system. It is part of the civil law system where cases are adjudicated. There are also no juries in juvenile court, and the proceedings are generally kept confidential.

There are also a number of different “dispositions” – also known as sentences – in juvenile court that wouldn’t necessarily be available in adult criminal proceedings. Informal probation is certainly an option, however in juvenile court the minor never admits any allegation of wrongdoing and the charges are dismissed upon successful completion of the program. Juvenile offenders are also not “incarcerated” in state prison; they are “committed” to the California Youth Authority (CYA) which is also called the Division of Juvenile Justice under the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations.

Juvenile offenders are committed to CYA instead of incarcerated because the goal of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate offenders. It is well known that the adult criminal justice system is designed to punish, deter, and incapacitate – rarely is rehabilitation a goal. Juvenile offenders will often get the education, treatment and services necessary to move past their crimes, reunite with their families and become productive members of society.

Although most minors under the age of 18 at the time of the offense will be tried in the juvenile justice system, there are cases in which younger minors can be tried in the adult court system. The age at the time of offense is critical, this means that if the offense was committed when the offender was 17 but is not caught until age 20, the case can still be heard in the juvenile justice system.

However, certain crimes committed while the minor is 14 and up must be heard in the adult court system. These are typically very serious crimes such as murder with special circumstances, sex offenses such as rape with force, violence or threat of bodily harm, forcible sex in concert with another, lewd and lascivious acts on a child under 14 with force, violence or threat of great bodily injury, forcible sexual penetration, sodomy or oral copulation by force, violence or threat of great bodily injury.

In certain circumstances, minors can be tried as an adult. Those circumstances are crimes such as murder, arson causing great bodily injury, robbery, certain sex crimes, kidnapping for ransom, robbery or with great bodily harm, attempted murder, assault with a firearm, and other such serious offenses. Prosecutors have the discretion as to how to handle cases that can be filed in adult court. They can either file directly in adult court or can initiate a fitness hearing and have a judge decide the issue.

These are just of few of the intricacies involved in juvenile criminal defense. It is important to have an attorney who is dedicated to understanding fully the juvenile justice system, especially where there is the necessity of a fitness hearing. The best outcomes can happen in juvenile court, but you need an attorney there who knows how to get those outcomes.

This Friday: Fear and Criminal Threats

This Friday we have another teenager caught up in the criminal justice system. We no longer live in an era where boys will be allowed to be “just boys”. Any kind of bullying, or threat will be taken very seriously in schools. This week, a Mira Costa High School student was arrested on suspicion of making criminal threats against classmates and staff at the high school. The student is 16 years old. He was arrested after Manhattan Beach Police received a tip that he made threatening statements toward students and staff at Mira Costa High School. Actually, the alleged threats were indirect threats and are still under investigation.

One student at Mira Costa High School is quoted as saying “He [suspect] was doing good in class. I think he got really mad one day.” Perhaps the teen just lost his temper and said completely inappropriate things. The news story doesn’t specify exactly what he said, in order to understand whether his words really trigger a charge for criminal threats. I am sure many of the students in Manhattan Beach’s Mira Costa High School are confused because they think this is a free country – freedom of speech! Well, the freedom is limited.

A criminal threat is when an individual threatens to kill or physically harm someone and that person is thereby placed in a state of reasonably sustained fear for his or her safety or for the safety of his or her family. The ability to carry out the threat or the intent to carry out the threat are not elements of the crime. A chargeable threat could be something as simple as a recently fired employee calling the former boss and telling the boss that he and the office staff better “watch their backs.” A communication via text could also fall under this law such as if an individual texted their ex that they are going to set fire to her apartment.

Prosecutors must prove that the defendant willfully threatened to kill or serious injure another person; that the defendant intended his verbal, written or electronically communicated statement to be received as a threat; that the threat on its face and under the circumstances was so specific that it conveyed an immediate possibility of execution; and that the threatened individual reasonably feared for his or her safety or for the safety of his or her family.

In the case of this Manhattan Beach teen, he certainly has viable defenses. It is a defense to a criminal threats charge if the threat was not specific, but was vague or ambiguous. Here, the Manhattan Beach Police are already saying the threats were “indirect.” That is something any good defense attorney will latch onto to convince a prosecutor to not even file the criminal case. Another defense is if the recipient of the threat could not have reasonably feared for his or her safety, or was not actually in fear for his or her safety. In the news reports students are quoted as saying they were never in fear. This bodes well for the defendant if those were the same students targeted by his indirect threats. Moreover, if the threats were indirect it would not be reasonable for any recipient to fear for his or her safety.

Fear, as it applies to criminal threat means three different things – that the victim was actually fearful, that the fear was reasonable, and that the fear was sustained (as opposed to momentary or fleeting). Sustained fear may also be another hurdle for the prosecution of this Manhattan Beach teen. The fear must be a state of mind that extends beyond what is momentary, fleeting or transitory. If, after being threated, the students and staff just went right back to their business then this would be good evidence to support the defense that “fear” was not sustained. However, if the students and staff went directly to campus security to have the individual escorted off campus and mounted a campaign to have him suspended because of their fear – then surely that could be deemed sustained fear.

What about freedom of speech, isn’t that a defense? – you ask. Well, California’s criminal threats law does not apply to constitutionally protected speech. What is constitutionally protected speech is angry outbursts or rantings, not speech that is targeted to instill fear in others. Of course, any good defense attorney will still argue that any alleged “threats” were not in fact threats but constitutionally protected speech. This is very applicable to the Manhattan Beach teen because it is widely understood that teens often rant and rave because they are so emotional about everything. No one could possibly be expected to take their outbursts as serious threats.

The crime of “criminal threats” can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony. If convicted of a misdemeanor the defendant faces up to one year in county jail and a $1,000 fine. If convicted of a felony the defendant faces up to four years in state prison and a $10,000 fine. Criminal threats is also a “strike” under California’s three strikes law when charged as a felony and the defendant would be required to serve at least 85% of the sentence before being eligible for release.

Note on Three Strikes Law: If the defendant is later charged with any felony after having a prior strike on their record, the defendant will be referred to as a second striker and the sentence on the new felony will be twice the term otherwise required by law. If the defendant picks up a third felony and has two strikes on his record he will be a third striker and will serve a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years-to-life in state prison.

You can read the story here. You can also read the school district's letter to parents here.

Furnishing Alcohol to Minors

This week’s Friday story makes me think that the following cities are pretty safe when it comes to violent crime: El Segundo, Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach. This is because officers spent this week in a sting operation to – wait for it – cite people for buying alcohol for minors. Seriously?!

Officers enlisted minors to work undercover and stand outside stores in those three cities and ask 232 adults to buy alcohol for them. Only 13 people were cited. Wow, right? I know what you are thinking, “Isn’t that entrapment?” Well, first let’s deal with the Selling or Furnishing Alcohol to Minors situation.

Giving alcohol to or purchasing it for a person under 21 years of age is a misdemeanor in California and violating this law subjects the defendant to jail time and fines. One of the most common ways to violate California’s “furnishing alcohol to a minor” law occurs at grocery or liquor stores near college campuses. That is, an underage individual will give an adult money and ask that they please buy the underage person some alcohol. Then as the adult returns, an officer busts you either because they were using the minor as one of their agents – or a youthful looking officer – in an undercover sting operation; or they observed the adult furnishing the alcohol to the minor.

Moreover, the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control has announced that beginning in January of 2011 it will provide money to local law enforcement agencies that employ these type of undercover operations. This may explain the recent stings in three Southbay cities. Such stings are typically known as “shoulder tap” operations.

One defense that can be asserted here would be a Mistake of Fact defense which means that if the judge or jury believes that the defendant honestly and reasonably thought that the minor was of legal drinking age, they could choose to acquit the defendant of the charge. And, then there is Entrapment.

Entrapment serves as an absolute legal defense in California if the defendant can prove that he only committed the charged offense because the police lured him into doing so. A defendant would have to show that this was a situation where a normally law abiding person is induced to commit a crime that he otherwise would not have committed. This only applies to police conduct that is overbearing such as forms of pressure, harassment, fraud, flattery, or threats. Now, herein “lies the rub” because entrapment will not serve as a defense if the officer merely offers you the opportunity to participate in an illegal activity. This is because the law believes that reasonable people presented with a similar situation to commit a crime will resist the temptation to do so.

This rational for the law is a big hurdle to overcome for the 13 defendants in this Southbay sting because hundreds of other people actually did resist the temptation to purchase alcohol for a minor when presented with the opportunity to do so. It will also be difficult to convince a judge or jury that a minor standing outside a liquor store presented himself as overbearing to the defendant, so much so that it rose to the level of entrapment. Prosecutors will argue that the actions of the minors as “agents” of the officer was permissible conduct not subject to California entrapment law because it was merely presenting an opportunity to participate in criminal activity. Undercover operations have typically been deemed as permissible conduct not subject to entrapment laws.

If convicted of furnishing alcohol to minors, the defendants face a maximum $1,000 fine and will be required to perform no less than 24 hours of community service in either an alcohol or drug treatment facility or at a county coroner’s office. If the minor consumed the alcohol and caused either himself or another person to suffer great bodily injury or death, the defendant would face a six-month to one-year county jail sentence and the $1,000 fine.

You can read the story here.

Friday Fail: What is Up with RPV Teens Lately?

This week’s Friday Favorite is about some teenagers trying to avoid bad grades by cheating, then getting caught. Fail! On Thursday, three Palos Verdes High School juniors were arrested on suspicion of breaking into classrooms, hacking into four teachers’ computers and changing their grades online. They also reportedly broke into classrooms late at night to steal hard copies of tests from teachers’ desks, which they would then sell to other students.

They were able to get into teachers’ classrooms because they picked the lock of the janitor’s office and took a master key! They then got into password protected computers by using “keyloggers” which recorded the teachers’ user names and passwords that were typed on their keyboards. Up to 12 students could be implicated in grade-tampering or for receiving stolen tests.

There are several crimes here, such as several counts of burglary, several counts of receiving stolen property, several counts of petty theft, and conspiracy.

Let’s talk about conspiracy because it is actually a very serious crime. Conspiracy takes place when one agrees with one or more 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 have to be criminal.

An overt act is an act that is done in order to help accomplish the agreed upon crime. Here, the students face Conspiracy to Commit Burglary charges. The overt act would probably be attaching the “keyloggers” to the computers; those “keyloggers” resembled USB drives. This act helped accomplish the crime of burglary. All of the teenagers in this cheating scandal can be convicted as co-conspirators even if they didn’t all know each other.

Typical defenses include that there was no agreement, there was no overt act, a defendant withdrew from the conspiracy, the defendant operated under mistake of law, or the defendant was falsely accused. It is important to understand that these teenagers can be convicted of conspiracy without ever having to be convicted of burglary. Burglary and Conspiracy to commit burglary are two separate charges. Key defenses that may be used by these teens are that there was no agreement, or that a particular teenager withdrew, or that one was falsely accused.

Even if a teenager in this case conspired to commit a crime, he is not guilty of conspiracy if he truly and affirmatively rejected the conspiracy and communicated that rejection to the co-conspirators. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are text messages that say “I’m out” or “I’m not going along with this.” However, those text messages or other communications must be delivered before someone commits an overt act in furtherance of the crime. If anyone waited until after the “keyloggers” were attached to the computers then they did not effectively withdraw from the conspiracy. That communication – after the overt act – can still save the individual from being held liable for any crimes that are committed after communicating his withdrawal.

What makes conspiracy even more dangerous is that members of a conspiracy are criminally responsible for all of the crimes that are committed by any of the co-conspirators if they are committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. This is true even when the members are not aware of the other crimes. This means that if some teenagers agreed to the burglary but didn’t agree to selling the tests, they are still on the hook for selling the stolen property.

Here, the teenagers facing conspiracy to commit burglary would be facing the same penalties that are imposed in connection with the burglary charge alone. The burglary charge for the Palos Verdes High School teenagers would be second degree burglary as a felony, and they each would face sixteen months, or two years or three years in state prison and a maximum fine of $10,000.

Read the story here.

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.

New California 2012 Criminal Laws

Happy New Year……okay I know that it is officially too late to be greeting you all with that. However, I noticed that the very important new-laws-of-2012-post has not been published yet. So here we go, criminal law version:

Handgun Open Carry Law

New in 2012, civilians can no longer open-carry handguns. This is because law enforcement officers cannot tell whether openly carried weapons are loaded or not. Violate this law and you could face a penalty of $1,000 and 6 months in jail – making this a misdemeanor crime. Never fear, you can still get a permit for a concealed weapon.

New DUI Law

A new section had been added to the California Vehicle Code authorizing court to revoke a driver’s license for 10 years if a person is convicted of three or more DUIs. Motorists may apply for reinstatement of their license with the DMV after five years, if the driver installs an Ignition Interlock Device (IID) in their vehicle. See VC23579.

New Reckless Driving Law

This new law allows California drivers convicted of reckless driving under section 23103.5 of the Vehicle Code (“wet reckless”) to apply for a restricted driver’s license prior to the completion of their one year suspension if they meet specific conditions, such as the installation of the Ignition Interlock Device in their vehicle, they have to serve at least a 90-day suspension, and have no more than two prior alcohol-related convictions within 10 years. I would just wait out the suspension rather than suffer with the hassle of the IID.

Controversial DUI Checkpoint Vehicle Impound Law

In 2012, law enforcement officers are prohibited from impounding a vehicle for 30 days at a DUI checkpoint if the only offense is failing to have a valid driver’s license. Specifically LAPD Chief Charlie Beck had proposed lifting the 30-day impound and giving the registered owner or a license driver a reasonable chance to retrieve the vehicle. The controversy revolves around the notion that the changes reward lawbreakers and put politics above safety. Read more at the L.A. Times.

Child Safety-Seat Requirements

The law used to be that kids had to ride in safety or booster seats until they reached age 6 or weighed 60 pounds. Now they have to reach age 8 or at least 4 feet, 9 inches tall before they no longer have to ride in a safety seat. The police can stop a vehicle for a suspected violation of this law.

New Drug-Related Laws

Synthetic Stimulants: Effective in October of 2011, California has outlawed a wide range of synthetic stimulant drugs, including what is called “bath salts” and the several street names it goes under, such as “Ivory Wave,” “Red Dove,” and “Vanilla Sky.” Common ingredients are Methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) and Naphthylpyrovalerone (NRG-1).  See Health and Safety Code Section 11375.5.

Cough Suppressant: Supplying a drug or compound containing dextromethorphan, a cough suppressant, to a person younger than 18 without a prescription is now illegal.

Corroboration of In-Custody Informants

A jury or judge may not convict a defendant based on the uncorroborated testimony of an in-custody informant.  See Penal Code Section 1111.5.

Cell Phones in Prison

Smuggling or trying to smuggle a cell phone to a prison inmate is now a misdemeanor. Any inmate who is found to be in possession of a wireless communication device shall be subject to time credit denial or loss of up to 90 days.

Anti-Gang-Violence Classes For Parents

A judge can already order the parents of a kid convicted of a gang-related offense to attend anti-gang-violence parenting classes. Now a judge can do that even when the kid is convicted of something other than a gang-related offense “if the court finds the presence of significant risk factors for gang involvement on the part of the minor.”  See Welfare and Institutions Code Section 727.7.

Be safe out there this year…and always.