California Obscene Material Criminal Offense Minors Burglary Videotape Lawyers Attorneys

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONALD WAYNE HOBBS, Defendant and Appellant.

COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO

June 12, 2007, Filed

Defendant snuck into a girls' locker room at a high school and filmed at least 45 girls who were competing in a swim meet as they changed into and out of their bathing suits. The girls were between 8 and 18 years old. Court convicted him of two counts of burglary under Pen. Code, 459, and 40 counts of violating Pen. Code, 311.4, subd. (c).

Issues:

Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of violation of section 311.4, subdivision (c)?

Observation and Holding:

As is pertinent here, section 311.4, subdivision (c) punishes anyone who "knowingly promotes, employs, uses, persuades, induces, or coerces a minor to engage in either posing or modeling for purposes of preparing any videotape involving sexual conduct by a minor. Defendant contends there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions of violating this section becausethe plain language of the section requires that the victims be engaged in posing or modeling at the direction of defendant. Defendant took advantage of the fact that the victims were in a placewhere he knew they would expose themselves. Further, as the trial court concluded, he manipulated their environment so as to further take advantage of their vulnerability. In that regard, he posed them, without having to direct them in person. There is no logical link between such direction and the Legislature's purpose in enacting section 311.4, subdivision (c). As the Supreme Court noted in Cochran, section 311.4, and other related provisions, are aimed at both the makers of materials that exploit minors and those that sell/distribute those materials. Defendant posed the victims by herding them with the signs, cones and caution tape to a position most favorable to filming, the same as if he had been in the room directing them to stand in front of the camera. Having so concluded, the court necessarily also conclude that the Legislature did not intend to punish people who prey on children, as defendant did here, under section 647, subdivision (k), which addresses the misdemeanor of being a "Peeping Tom" and applies to all victims, regardless of age. Being a Peeping Tom does not require manipulation of the victims, as defendant did here. Moreover, at the time defendant committed these crimes, there was no paragraph of section 647, subdivision (k) which applied to the filming defendant engaged in here.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

California Obscene Material Criminal Offense Minors Burglary Videotape Lawyers Attorneys

By: Atchuthan Sriskandarajah

POST COMMENT

North Carolina Driving Under Influence Traffic Offense High Rate Speed Lawyers Attorneys Finding Best Lawyer For Debts Everything you need to know before hiring an IRS tax lawyer! How Can I Create Wealth in Retirement Criminal Defense Lawyer: What Do They Really Do Criminal Defense Lawyer Los Angeles: Wondering What They Can Achieve For You? Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer Association: Why Are They So Important Living as Being a Criminal Defense Lawyer In Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer: How The Heck Do You Pick One Getting a Criminal Defense Lawyer for a Drunk Driving Charge A Criminal Defense Lawyer Can Assist You Defend Against a Misdemeanor Charge The Retirement Group | Should You Downsize For Retirement? The Retirement Group | Are You Prepared To Pay For Long Term Care?