California Criminal Defense Blog

Perhaps the most relatively recent controversial product of the often criticized California felony-murder rule is Brandon Hein. Brandon Hein, then 17, was sentenced to life in prison for his involvement in the 1995 stabbing of another teenager. The case received much publicity based on the application of the felony-murder rule.

California’s felony-murder rule holds a defendant liable for murder if he or an accomplice kills another person during the commission of (1) specifically listed felonies, or (2) “inherently dangerous” felonies. Hein’s case involved an alleged robbery, which is one of the specifically listed felonies that triggers this rule.

Hein and the other teens charged in connection with the murder claimed that they went to a house to buy marijuana when a fist fight erupted. The fight ended when the victim (the 15-year old son of a Los Angeles Police Department veteran) was stabbed in the chest by one of the teens.

Prosecutors painted a different picture, saying that the boys went to the house to steal the marijuana. Because of California’s felony-murder rule, all of the teens involved in the fight were convicted as if each of them personally stabbed the victim. This was despite the fact that all of them denied even knowing that the individual who stabbed the victim did so…or, for that matter, that he even had a weapon.

Yep, that’s right. Eric Williamson was convicted of violating Virginia’s indecent exposure law. This case received national attention because of the fact that Williamson was in his own home at the time of the offense.

Police arrested Williamson after a mother and her 7-year-old son claimed that as they walked by Williamson’s home, he made a point of making his “naked self” visible to them.

Under California’s “indecent exposure” law, Penal Code 314 PC, unless Williamson purposely “flashed” himself to the mother and son and drew attention to his genitals, he could not have been convicted of indecent exposure. This is because California’s “indecent exposure” law under Penal Code 314 PC requires

1. that you intentionally expose yourself or your “private parts”,


2. in a public area or area where people were present and likely to be offended, and


3. you acted in a lewd manner while drawing attention to your genitals.

Continue reading "Man Convicted for Indecent Exposure...In His Own Home" »

In Nevada, that is. Nevada is currently the only state where prostitution is legal…as long as it is confined to brothels located in specific counties within the state. Until recently, these brothels only hired women in accordance with the state’s health and safety laws that required licensed prostitutes to undergo frequent cervical testing to ensure they remain STD free.

Within a couple of weeks, one of the state’s legal brothels is hoping to hire a few men to service their clients. This is thanks to a new regulation that provides for urethral testing for men to ensure the same health standards for both sexes.

Continue reading "Introducing the First Legal Male Prostitutes" »

Last week, police arrested Devar L. Hurd for cyberstalking the mother of R&B singer Ashanti Douglas. Prosecutors report that Hurd sent Ms. Douglas over 30 explicit text messages. Some of the messages qualified as “sext” messages, including several photos of his genitals and messages about performing graphic sexual acts.

California’s cyberstalking laws are codified in Penal Code 646.9 PC. Simply put, Penal Code 646.9 PC cyberstalking prohibits using any “electronic communication device” (including a cell phone) to threaten or harass another person with the intention of placing that person in fear for his/her safety or for the safety of his/her family.

While cyberstalking may seem less harmful or intrusive than “traditional” stalking, the offenses are prosecuted and punished in much the same way. In fact, cyberstalking can actually be just as dangerous as traditional stalking, due in large part to the fact that blog postings, chat room conversations, and even e-mails can be sent anonymously. Because of this fact, law enforcement agencies have formed specialized units to aggressively investigate cyberstalking claims.

The California prison population will experience a 27% decrease over the next two years, or at least that’s the plan. A panel of federal judges recently ordered the state of California to reduce its prison population of 150,000 down to about 110,000, citing overcrowding in prisons as resulting in inadequate health care for inmates. California has a period of 45 days to devise a plan for reducing the prisoner population.

According to The New York Timess, “in these overcrowded conditions, inmate-on-inmate violence is almost impossible to prevent, infectious diseases spread more easily, and lockdowns are sometimes the only means by which to maintain control.” In response, The Los Angeles Times reports that “the governor and most legislative leaders back a plan that would reduce prison populations by as many as 37,000 over the next two years using a combination of early releases, changes in parole policies and shifting some prisoners to county jails.” It has also been recommended that the number of incarcerated, nonviolent offenders should be decreased, inciting anger amongst and objection from law enforcement and victims’ rights groups.

Previous plans to reduce the prison population in California seemed to be more concerned over helping reduce the state budget and less concerned with the well-being of prisoners. Critics of reduction for any sort of reason cite public safety as being compromised if prisoners, even if they are nonviolent offenders, are released back into the general population. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the judges ordering the reduction believe that “by changing parole practices and releasing some low-risk inmates to local custody, treatment programs or electronic monitoring, the prison population can be reduced without a meaningful adverse impact on public safety.”

Continue reading "Judges Order CA to Reduce Prison Population" »

According to The Washington Post, Michael Jackson was administered a deadly dosage of propofol, an anesthetic drug that a personal physician was administering to the entertainer as a sedative to help him sleep. Though the anesthetic is not recommended for home use, particularly since necessary equipment needed for life-saving measures are not typically found within the confines of a private home, the anesthetic was given to Jackson nevertheless.

Conflicting stories paint the scene of Jackson’s final moments, with authorities questioning the amount of propofol used on the singer, and trying to ascertain whether any criminal activity took place that ultimately lead to Jackson being administered the drugs in the first place. Though numerous prescriptions were found in Jackson’s home, many prescribed by the very personal physician that administered the supposedly lethal injection of propofol, there were no prescription labels associated with the anesthetic, forcing many investigators to ask exactly where Jackson acquired it from and who was responsible for providing it to him.

Continue reading "Jackson Doctor Administered Lethal Dose" »

Three LAPD officers were charged with perjury Tuesday based on a videotape that surfaced contradicting their testimony about seeing a suspect toss a baggie of cocaine. The video also appears to depict the officers agreeing to "doctor" their police report to implicate the suspect wrongly.

No one knows the extent to which police lie in their reports and testimony. But thousands of people get convicted each year based on uncorroborated police testimony. Prosecutors, judges and juries often accept officers' stories uncritically, assuming their word should always be believed over that of criminal suspects.

Had a hidden camera not captured the truth in this case, the defendant likely would have been wrongfully convicted. As it is, the judge dismissed the case after the video surfaced at trial.

Continue reading "LAPD Perjury Case Should Make Us All More Critical of Police Testimony" »

The L.A. Times is reporting:

Prosecutors Must Decide Whether to Charge 13-year-old Who Allegedly Started Brush Fire

September 17, 2009 | 7:28 am

Los Angeles prosecutors could decide today whether to file charges against a 13-year-old boy accused of starting the Morris fire above Azusa, which burned 2,100 acres last month.

The Station fire, the largest in L.A. County history, has been declared an arson. But there are no suspects.

The story highlights a conflict for the Los Angeles County DA's Office. On the one hand, public pressure to throw the book at suspected arsonists is at an all time high...on the heels a spate of deadly and multi-billion dollar fires.

On the other hand, children generally don't face prosecution for serious crimes, unless it can be shown that they knew right from wrong. In this case, however, it's likely a 13-year-old will be deemed to have appreciated the wrongfulness of his actions...alleged actions.

A Santa Ana jury hung yesterday in the murder trial of Sandra Jessee, accused of hiring someone to stab her husband who was ill with colon cancer. The prosecution argued that Jessee was frustrated with the victim's mounting medical bills, and that she gained by inheriting his 401k and life insurance payout.

The jury hung 11-to-1 in favor of the prosecution. Some of the majority jurors accused the dissenting juror of failing to deliberate and analyze the case properly. The dissenter apparently had trouble believing a key prosecution witness, a co-conspirator who had been offered a deal in exchange for his testimony.

Orange County criminal attorney John Murray believes conviction is likely in the retrial. "If they got 11 jurors this time, odds are they'll get 12 next time. But it goes to show that anything's possible in a jury trial, especially when the prosecution has to turn a witness to make its case." Deputy OC District Attorney Mike Murray says he plans to re-file murder charges and retry the case.

Although no charges have been filed yet, the doctors overseeing Michael Jackson could face prosecution--possibly even for murder--if it's determined that they knowingly and improperly administered to him a dangerous combination of drugs.

Dr. Alex Farshchian, a Miami Beach doctor who was treating Michael Jackson at the Neverland Ranch, is currently the focus of an LAPD inquiry. It's suspected that Farshchian was providing Demerol and Buprinex to the singer, both pain killers to which Jackson apparently was addicted.

A person can be charged with Second Degree Murder in California if he intentionally commits an act dangerous to human life, and deliberately acts with a "conscious disregard" for human life. Under Penal Code 187 (California murder law), there need not be any specific intent to kill the victim. Examples include a repeat drunk driver who causes an accident killing a third party, or a drug dealer whose buyer dies from an overdose.

If the Jackson doctors knew that the combination of drugs supplied to the singer was potentially fatal, and outside the bounds of acceptable medical practice, Los Angeles prosecutors could charge them with murder. A conviction carries a life sentence, with the possibility of parole.

California Penal Code 148 (a)(1) defines the offense commonly known as "resisting arrest." This crime most frequently gets charged in a situation where a police officer goes to arrest someone, and the person struggles physically to avoid being taken into custody. Police then have to apply greater force to subdue the suspect.

But California Penal Code 148 reads broader than just the traditional notion of "resisting arrest." It applies to situations where a suspect is "resisting, delaying or otherwise obstructing" a peace officer or emergency medical technician in performing his/her duties. Basically this means anything that thwarts a peace officer in conducting an investigation and facilitating arrest qualifies as “resisting arrest.” Other examples would include providing a false identity to an arresting officer or filing a false police report.

Penal Code 148 is a California misdemeanor that could land a person in jail for up to one year. Many of these cases involve a police officer's word against a suspect's word. In that situation, defense attorneys will want to conduct a "Pitchess Motion" to see the entire personnel and complaint history of the officer. It may turn out the cop has been accused in the past of excessive force and making false accusations against suspects. If so, the defense can use this to impeach the officer's credibility, and often get the resisting arrest case reduced or dismissed.

Doctors pronounced pop star Michael Jackson dead Thursday, just four years after a Santa Maria jury acquitted him of child molestation charges.

In that case, the prosecution charged Jackson with seven counts of Penal Code 288 -- Lewd Acts with a Child Under 14. The judge also allowed prosecutors to bring in evidence of other uncharged allegations of Jackson's inappropriate sexual activity with children.

Early on in the case, legal experts felt that the evidence against Jackson was compelling, and he faced very likely conviction. But after one of the most celebrated and closely-watched criminal trials, a jury acquitted Jackson of all charges on June 13, 2005--almost exactly four years before his death.

California has two primary criminal laws that punish people for driving a motor vehicle when they are not properly licensed. California Vehicle Code 12500 makes it a misdemeanor to drive without a valid driver’s license. California Vehicle Code 14601 makes it a misdemeanor to drive on a suspended license.

California Vehicle Code 12500 is a relatively straightforward statute. It makes it a crime to drive without a validly issued license. This most often applies to people who never obtained a drivers license in the first place, or who failed to renew their license upon expiration, or people who moved to California and failed to switch from a license issued in the previous state to a California drivers license.

Vehicle Code 14601, on the other hand, applies to someone who had a valid driver’s license but whose license got suspended. The reasons for the suspension could include a California DUI conviction, failure to pay traffic fines and DMV fees, or becoming a "negligent operator" accumulating too many points on one's driving record.

Vehicle Code 14601 cases can be more difficult for the prosecutor to prove. To be guilty of the crime, the driver must have knowledge that his license was suspended at the time of driving. Unless a judge, police officer or DMV official specifically advised him/her of the suspension, this "knowledge" element can be difficult to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt, anyhow). But though VC 14601 is a tougher crime for the state to substantiate, the penalties for California Vehicle Code 14601 are substantially greater.

Attorney Darrell York Joins the Shouse Law Group

Darrell York , a former 24-year veteran law enforcement officer with the Glendale Police Department , has joined the Los Angeles-based Shouse Law Group.

During his police career, Darrell York undertook a wide range of assignments...from patrol to narcotics to internal affairs to sergeant and watch commander. He made literally thousands of arrests, investigated nearly every type of crime, and trained new police recruits.

Now as a criminal defense attorney, Darrell York uses this extensive police background to aid him in investigating and defending criminal cases for his clients. Mr. York works on all kinds of criminal cases, from Penal Code 187 murder to fraud to Penal Code 273.5 domestic violence . But he maintains a particular focus on California DUI and drunk driving law.

The Shouse Law Group is a firm of California criminal defense lawyers comprised largely of former police and former prosecutors. The firm has offices in Los Angeles, Ventura County, Orange county, San Bernardino and Riverside.