Orange County Criminal Attorney Blog

A fundamental principle of our legal system is that everyone is entitled to due process of law, no matter how bizarre or unsettling their alleged offense may be. California criminal defense lawyers, after practicing long enough, see cases that range from the critically serious to the laughably strange. As we enter a new year, it is worth taking a moment to look at the more unusual side of criminal law, and the editors of the Rancho Santa Margarita Patch have helped us by publishing their review of Orange County's strangest "minor crimes of 2011." Several common themes emerge from their list, broadly summarized as public nudity, strange threats, unusual sights, and unfortunate bathroom behavior (a topic perhaps best left alone).

Laws relating to public nudity vary from place to place in California. Generally speaking, a person does not get into serious criminal trouble unless and until their conduct causes a public disruption or nuisance, but California law treats "indecent exposure" as a misdemeanor, defined as public exposure of one's "private parts" when other people who might be "offended or annoyed" are present. Punishment could be as much as a year in prison for a first offense, depending on the circumstances. Notable cases of 2011 included a report of a San Clemente couple taking nude pictures of one another in public, and a nude middle-aged man in San Juan Capistrano watching traffic in a shopping center parking lot. The winner, however, is clearly the report of a naked man driving a Toyota Corolla up and down the street in Aliso Viejo, repeatedly turning the dome light on and off.

Making a threat to harm another person, even a very strange threat, is considered a crime if it puts the person in reasonable fear of bodily injury. For the woman in Laguna Niguel who found fish heads on her porch, a quick internet search convinced her that it was a death threat. Her fear of imminent harm was alleviated when she learned that the fish heads were intended to go to a different porch, and eventually into a soup. A woman in Mission Viejo found her house bombarded with oranges one night, followed by grapefruit the next, in an attack the Patch editors thought might be a message about her vitamin C intake.

Continue reading "Strange Crimes of Orange County: 2011 in Review" »

Over sixty prisoners in Orange County's jail had to sleep on the floor recently while they waited for beds to become available. County jails around the state are reporting difficulties handling an influx of prisoners as the state shifts many detainees out of state prisons and makes them the counties' problem. Counties are now scrambling to find room, often releasing detainees early and looking for other methods of punishment for new offenses.

A new state law that took effect October 1 made counties responsible for people convicted of certain offenses that had previously been the state's burden. The new law covers about five hundred felony offenses deemed "nonviolent, nonsexual and non-serious." It sets aside money for counties to help them bear the additional burden. The law resulted from a May ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding a lower court's order for the state of California to reduce its prison population by at least 30,000. California has one of the largest prison populations in the country, and the U.S. has one of the largest prison populations in the world. The ruling held, in part, that overcrowding in California prisons led to conditions that violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment."

Since October 1, state prisons have been transferring detainees to county jails. Many jails are now full or even overcrowded, but officials expect this to balance out over time. In an attempt to stem the inflow of detainees for new offenses, counties are looking into alternatives to incarceration. Fresno County, for example, has announced that it will no longer incarcerate people solely for parole violations. It will still put people in jail for new criminal offenses, but it is looking for alternative punishments wherever possible.

Some prosecutors and other critics of the new law allege that the sudden rise in the jail population results in part from an effort by criminal defense attorneys to delay their clients' sentencings until after October 1, to minimize the possibility of a term in state prison. The Los Angeles County district attorney has stated that he will train his prosecutors in ways that allow them to continue to charge alleged offenders with offenses allowing a state prison sentence, by digging through their criminal histories and searching for other factors that could lead to enhanced charges. Others may lobby the Legislature to pass new laws expanding the scope of state prison sentences.

Continue reading "California Jails Deal With Shift of Inmates from State Prisons" »

A life-size statue of former president Ronald Reagan in a Newport Beach park sustained damage in a theft attempt. A witness reported seeing a man attach a rope or chain to the base of statue and attempt to pull it out with a pickup truck. The man only succeeded in breaking the bronze statue off of its foundation. Authorities found it tilting forward at about 5:30 the morning of Sunday, November 6, 2011, but lost the alleged perpetrator. The attempted theft occurred some time during the night. A Newport Beach police sergeant noted, "Either someone really didn't like Reagan or they tried to steal it so they can sell it for scrap metal." The City of Newport Beach has offered a $5,000 reward for information on the incident.

The statute was dedicated in Bonita Canyon Sports Park in Newport Beach on October 9, 2011, in honor of the 100th anniversary of the former president's birth. Nearly a year of controversy preceded the dedication, with dispute among residents about whether to rename the park for President Reagan. The $60,000 statue was financed entirely by private donations. Authorities have not said how much it will cost to repair the statue. City work crews removed the statue from its base in order to perform repairs.

Since the statue was a donation to a city park, it is publicly-owned property. The reward offered by the city certainly indicates that they wish to find the alleged culprit. The question then pertains to what crime was actually committed. California identifies theft of most types of property valued over $950 as "grand theft." At a cost of $60,000 and unknown repair costs, the statue certainly fits this definition. The penalty of up to one year imprisonment would not apply in this case, because no actual theft occurred. The Penal Code allows for a lesser punishment, usually one-half of the punishment prescribed for a specific offense, for an attempted offense. With the statue itself and witness testimony, a prosecutor may feel confident in bringing attempted theft charges, if the alleged perpetrator is ever found.

Continue reading "Statue of Ronald Reagan in Orange County Park Endures Theft Attempt" »

A Los Angeles jury convicted Dr. Conrad Murray, the personal doctor to pop star Michael Jackson, of involuntary manslaughter earlier today. The case involved allegations that Dr. Murray had given Jackson an excessive dose of anesthetic, causing his 2009 death. The jury issued its verdict after less than nine hours of deliberations. None of the jurors have spoken to the media yet, so it is not clear if they determined any specific actions of Dr. Murray, such as the actual administration of the drug, beyond his overall liability for Jackson's death. Dr. Murray's sentencing is scheduled for November 29, 2011.

Jackson died on June 25, 2009 while planning a comeback tour. The official cause of death was acute propofol intoxication. Propofol is an intravenously-administered sedative used in general anesthesia and milder sedation. Dr. Murray was giving it to Jackson for insomnia, although he did not have monitoring or resuscitation equipment at Jackson's home, according to prosecutors. Jackson suffered cardiac arrest the day of his death. Dr. Murray said that he found Jackson in bed, not breathing, and tried to administer CPR. Prosecutors said he waited 20 minutes to call 911 and did not tell responding paramedics that he had given Jackson propofol.

Dr. Murray's attorneys argued at trial that Jackson administered the propofol to himself when Dr. Murray was not present. Prosecutors argued that, under either their theory of the case or Dr. Murray's, he was guilty of involuntary manslaughter for failing to fulfill his legal and ethical duties as a physician. Failing to act can constitute involuntary manslaughter if a person had a legal obligation to act. In this situation, prosecutors argued, Dr. Murray had a duty as Jackson's doctor to monitor his care and to make sure Jackson received the correct dose of such a powerful drug. Whether Dr. Murray administered the propofol himself or allowed Jackson access to it without knowledge of how to use it, prosecutors argued he was criminally negligent. They further argued that he was criminally negligent in not immediately calling 911 and not fully informing rescue workers of Jackson's condition. The jury agreed with the prosecution's theory.

Continue reading "Doctor Convicted in 2009 Death of Michael Jackson" »

Irvine, California's City Council voted unanimously on October 26, 2011 to allow the Occupy Orange County demonstrators to camp overnight on the lawn of the city's Civic Center, agreeing with the protesters' arguments that their tents are a form of free speech more than they are a public nuisance or safety issue. The decision came after several weeks of wrangling over the legal status of the encampments in Irvine and larger disputes nationwide about the intersection of First Amendment rights and state and local law. Regardless of how one feels about the issues presented by the now-global protests, the situation presents important issues for criminal defense attorneys to understand.

Occupy Orange County began in mid-October in Irvine with a group setting up an encampment in front of the Civic Center. In most cities with "Occupy" groups, city governments have made various attempts to move protesters (or occupiers, depending on how you view them) away from certain areas, sometimes temporarily and sometimes permanently. The legal justifications given by cities usually involves city ordinances or state laws relating to public health or cleanliness and public nuisances. The Irvine City Council's decision is one of the first to explicitly grant authority to an Occupy group to continue an overnight presence in a public space.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to peacefully assemble, but courts have consistently held that governments may reasonably restrict that right as to the "time, manner, and place" of assemblies or demonstrations. Cities enforce these restrictions with a permitting system, which might deny a permit to a demonstration that would, for example, significantly block traffic or cause excessive noise at 4:00 a.m. Cities can also restrict access to public spaces, such as parks or sidewalks, at specific times for health or safety reasons. Some cities have attempted to clear demonstrators from an area in order to have sanitation workers clean the area, or they have cited protesters for health code violations relating to food or waste disposal.

Continue reading "City of Irvine Allows Occupy Orange County Protesters to Stay" »

An Appleton, Wisconsin woman, Sheila M. Smith, has received a seven-year prison sentence for first-degree reckless homicide and narcotics delivery, as reported by the Appleton Post-Crescent. An 18 year-old man died in September 2010 after taking prescription methadone obtained from her and an alleged co-conspirator, Kristi L. Schounard, who faces trial on the same charges next month. This case demonstrates how one criminal offense can lead to criminal liability for multiple events, if those events are the reasonably logical consequence of the original action. Even nonviolent offenses at the felony level can lead to a murder charge if someone dies during the commission of, or as a result of, a felony.

Methadone is considered a Schedule II drug under Wisconsin state law. Delivery of this class of drug is generally treated as a Class E felony, carrying a punishment of "a fine not to exceed $50,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 15 years, or both." Wisconsin typically defines "reckless homicide" as "recklessly caus[ing] the death of another human being under circumstances which show utter disregard for human life." The statute also specifically includes situations in which a person provides an illegal drug to someone who dies as a result of using that drug. The law applies regardless of whether the death was due solely to the drug in question or a combination of other drugs. A conviction under this part of the statute is a Class C felony, which can include punishments of "a fine not to exceed $100,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 40 years, or both."

The conviction is similar to second-degree murder in California, when a death occurs during commission of a non-violent felony, sometimes known as "felony murder." The law holds a person criminally liable for murder for deaths that occur as a result of a criminal act, whether the person intended to cause the death or not. This is slightly different from the usual requirement of intent and malice aforethought in order to obtain a murder conviction, based on the idea that a person is responsible for all the harms caused by their illegal actions.

Continue reading "Sale of Drugs Leads to Homicide Conviction for Wisconsin Woman" »

A core principle of the criminal justice system in America has long been the idea that, to be found guilty of a crime, a person must have awareness that they are doing something wrong. For fans of Latin, the idea is called mens rea, or "guilty mind," often phrased as "criminal intent." To convict someone of the most serious crimes, such as murder, prosecutors must prove that a person intended to commit the crime. For example, a murder conviction requires proof not only that the defendant killed someone, but that the defendant intended for the person to die. The less-severe crime of manslaughter involves a defendant who engaged in risky behavior, but did not specifically intend for the crime to happen. This is the difference between deliberately running someone over with a car and hitting someone accidentally while not watching the road. Both are crimes, but the intentional act is punished more severely under the law. The prosecutor has the burden of proving the defendant's state of mind when the crime allegedly occurred, and therefore the defendant's "criminal intent."

This does not always imply that a person must know that their action is illegal. Ignorance of the law is no defense, as another legal principle goes. A person must nevertheless have awareness of their actions (or inaction, in the case of not watching the road) leading up to an alleged crime.

Trends in federal criminal law suggest that the requirement of mens rea is changing, according to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal. Increasingly, federal prosecutors are seeking convictions for offenses that may not even seem criminal at face value, with implications for people all over the country.

The federal criminal code, which is established by the U.S. Congress and applies nationwide, has grown from about twenty crimes in the 1790's to over 4,500 today, with thousands more scattered through federal regulations. Many of these crimes relate to administrative matters, financial transactions, non-violent offenses, or restrictions placed on people with criminal records. Many can carry surprisingly harsh penalties.

The Journal gives an example of an Iowa man with a criminal record who, while working a construction job, found a .22 caliber bullet on a work site. He put the bullet in a box at his house, where police found it during a search several months later. While state prosecutors did not charge him, federal prosecutors contended possession of a single bullet violated federal statutes prohibiting firearm possession by convicted felons. He pleaded guilty to possessing a bullet and received a mandatory 15-year prison sentence. An appeals court affirmed the sentence but called it "extreme."

Continue reading "Growing List of Federal Crimes Leads to Lowering Standard of Proving Guilt" »

The United States Supreme Court affirmed an order last month requiring the State of California to reduce the inmate population to 137% of capacity. This will require the reduction of thousands of prisoners.

With a current prison population of over 140 thousand people, it is clear to see the "tough on crime" attitude taken across the state may be backfiring. Given the average cost of housing an inmate is over $45,000 per inmate per year, there are simply not limitless resources to throw at state prison incarceration for drug and nonviolent offenses.

A plan by Governor Jerry Brown to transfer many low-risk offenders to county jails appears to be a step in the right direction. However, why are they in prison in the first place?

Perhaps it is time to take a close look at the "one penalty fits all" mindset prevalent throughout the State of California. Considering the economic disaster facing California, a person can make an economic argument that warehousing tens of thousands of nonviolent offenders does not make sense.

The concept that needs to change is the belief incarceration is the answer to a wide variety of crimes. Perhaps it would be possible to allow individuals who have committed nonviolent offenses to pay back their debt to society by doing community work. By allowing community work as punishment, the People of the State of California win in numerous ways. First, a savings of $50,000 per year can be spent on more pressing matters, such as education. Second, society benefits by having work done which no one else wants to do. Finally, the state saves money by not having to pay for this work.

There must be alternatives to incarceration. We are only limited by our inability to see them.