In re Isaiah S. CA6
H042774
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 24, 2016Background
- Isaiah and Maria had a prior romantic relationship that ended in Aug 2013 after a miscarriage; contact thereafter was limited and Maria blocked Isaiah on Facebook.
- In Nov 2014 Maria encountered Isaiah near a bus stop; Isaiah followed her, accused her of causing the miscarriage, struck her (bruise and cut), and she reported the assault to police.
- A temporary no-contact restraining order issued; at a hearing the court explained no-contact meant no contact in any way (including social media, phones, third parties) and explained arrest could follow for violations; Isaiah acknowledged understanding.
- Juvenile court found Isaiah committed corporal injury (§ 273.5) and declared a ward; probation included four no-contact conditions (no personal/telephonic/electronic/written contact; no contact through third parties except counsel; stay 300 yards away; no contact without probation officer permission). Isaiah did not object following imposition.
- Isaiah appealed arguing the probation no-contact conditions were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because they lacked a knowledge requirement and could criminalize accidental or unwitting contact.
- The court modified the four probation conditions to add the word "knowingly" to each prohibition and affirmed the order as modified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether no-contact probation conditions are unconstitutionally vague/overbroad because they lack a knowledge requirement | No separate plaintiff brief noted; People defended conditions as appropriate to protect victim and consistent with juvenile court authority | Isaiah: conditions lack fair-warning/knowledge requirement and risk punishing accidental or unwitting contact | Court: Conditions must include a knowledge requirement; modified all four conditions to add "knowingly" and affirmed as modified |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (describing juvenile court discretion to impose fitting, rehabilitative probation conditions and standards for vagueness/overbreadth)
- In re Tyrell J., 8 Cal.4th 68 (noting that certain rights may be limited when tailored to juvenile rehabilitation)
- In re Jaime P., 40 Cal.4th 128 (discussing limits on juvenile probation conditions; cited as overruling authority on other grounds)
- In re Englebrecht, 67 Cal.App.4th 486 (explaining overbreadth doctrine and need to narrowly tailor restrictions on constitutional rights)