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.

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.

Not a Friday “Favorite”, Just a Freaky Friday Story

This week, a Redondo Beach man pleads no contest in Torrance Courthouse to a charge of Penal Code section 289(e) sexual penetration of an intoxicated person. The story is not what you think, or anything you could think up on your own. The crime occurred after the victim went to the man’s home in Redondo Beach to work on his computer. The man provided his victim with an alcoholic beverage, and the next thing he knows – he finds himself in the man’s shower, alert but unable to respond to what was happening. The man was sexually assaulting the victim with a thin, hard object and later shaved his body hair. Freaky right?!

However, the victim doesn’t call the police or file any police report. Instead he sought treatment to determine if he had contacted a sexually transmitted disease. It was the doctor that reported the crime. I guess I am not the only one who finds it strange that the victim of this disgusting crime didn’t immediately go to the police. The defense attorney contends that the encounter was entirely consensual! If that is true than this is even freakier than I thought!

The man will spend three years in prison and have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. He decided to take the three year deal against his attorney’s advice because he was concerned about testimony regarding allegations that he had drugged and molested teenage boys as far back as 30 years ago.

You may not think three years is enough of a punishment for a grotesque crime as this, but trust me he is going to be punished for the rest of his life. Registration as a sex offender under Penal Code 290 PC (known as the Sex Offender Registration Act) is, perhaps, one of the most devastating penalties you face if convicted of a California sex offense. The Sex Offender Registration Act states that you are required to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life so long as you live, work, or attend school in California. This means keeping your local law enforcement agency informed as to your general whereabouts.

In general, the Sex Offender Registration Act requires that offenders annually update their information within five working days of their birthday. Beyond that, reporting requirements will depend on a variety of factors, such as whether (1) the offender moves, (2) is a transient, (3) the judge declares the offender a sexually violent predator, or (4) he is enrolled at or employed by a California institution of higher learning.

This Torrance case of the Redondo Beach offender sounded like it was somewhat violent. The crime is not classified as a violent crime in the statute, but if the Judge determines he is a sexually violent predator then he must update his information with local law enforcement every 90 days. A "sexually violent predator" is an individual who has been convicted of a violent sexual offense and who has a diagnosed mental disorder rendering him/her a threat to the community.

Let’s not forget about Megan’s Law. Once a sex offender reports to his local law enforcement agency, the agency forwards his information to the California Department of Justice (DOJ). The Sex Offender Tracking Program at the DOJ maintains California's list of registered sex offenders. This information is generally available to the public over the Internet on the DOJ's Megan's Law website.

The information on the website will typically include the offender’s name, a photo, identifying information (height/weight, eye color, tattoos), and the offense(s) which subjected the offender to Penal Code 290 sex offender registration.

So, the Redondo Beach man will be forever punished as new neighbors and employers find out about his sex offender status. As for his Redondo Beach or Torranceneighborhood, they should check out the Megan’s Law website in three years to see if this freak is back living on their streets.

You can read the news story here.

Friday Favorite: Stealing From the Dead Probably isn't the Smartest Thing, Especially Right Before Halloween!

I am going to start a new series to post each Friday what my favorite crime story of the week was, with a little bit of explanation of the charge or potential charges. Here is a local one to start with.

In Rancho Palos Verdes, a 21-year-old Redondo Beach man has been charged with two counts of felony burglary for taking personal items of deceased people from inside a mausoleum at a Rancho Palos Verdes cemetery. This is my Friday Favorite because I thought it fit in just well with the upcoming Halloween weekend. Not to be gruesome or inconsiderate about the victims here, but it can’t be a coincidence that he was allegedly seen taking things from a mausoleum the week before Halloween. I wonder what would happen if he brought those items into the bathroom, closed the door, turned off the lights and played Bloody Mary. Would the owners of the personal items appear in the mirror with Bloody Mary? Okay, enough insensitive talk from me.

Burglary means that you enter a building (or other specified enclosure) with the intent to commit a theft or felony once inside. He is likely charged with second degree burglary which requires entry into a commercial building. First degree burglary is commonly referred to as residential burglary and is the more serious of the two types. You commit first degree burglary if you burgle any inhabited dwelling, that is, 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.  I wouldn’t put it past a prosecutor to charge him with first degree burglary arguing that the mausoleum was in fact occupied by persons in their final resting place.

It is the “intent” which will be hard to prove in this case. The prosecutor must prove that he intended to commit a felony or petty theft at the time he entered the mausoleum. California burglary law, under Penal Code 459, requires that you intend to "commit a petty theft, grand theft, or other felony" once inside. It isn't necessary for the prosecutor to prove that you actually committed the intended crime, only that you intended to do so. Sometimes intent is obvious, sometimes it's not. He was seen trying to open a glass cabinet inside a container holding the personal items of the deceased. Without more, the defense would argue that he knew the deceased and was replacing the personal items or adding to it. There is no indication that he walked into the mausoleum with tools to pry the glass open or had a bag in which to place items that he was taking. It is these tools and other actions by the defendant that prosecutors use to prove “intent”. This case will definitely be interesting.

If he is convicted of second degree burglary as a felony, he faces sixteen months, or two or three years in the state prison and a maximum fine of $10,000.

Read the news article and see his mug shot here.