21 Cal.App.5th 18
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- Petitioner Christopher White was charged with attempted kidnapping with intent to commit rape, assault with intent to commit rape, contact with a minor with intent to commit a sexual offense, and false imprisonment based on a daytime attack on a 15‑year‑old (J.D.) near her home.
- Witnesses observed White and Jeremiah Owens loitering and watching J.D.; Owens grabbed J.D., attempted to pull her toward a truck, and White allegedly acted as a lookout, told Owens to "get in the house," then drove Owens away after the assault.
- At the preliminary hearing the court found probable cause to bind White over for trial as an aider and abettor and found J.D. credible.
- White sought bail; the trial court denied bail under Cal. Const. art. I, § 12(b), concluding (1) "the facts are evident or the presumption great" (i.e., sufficient evidence to sustain conviction) and (2) by clear and convincing evidence there was a substantial likelihood that release would result in great bodily harm to others.
- White petitioned for habeas corpus challenging the remand without bail. The Court of Appeal reviewed the record and denied the petition, upholding both constitutional findings.
Issues
| Issue | White's Argument | People/D.A.'s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the requirement that "the facts are evident or the presumption great" is met (i.e., evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction) | White: Evidence was insufficient to show he aided and abetted; he claims mere presence/failure to intervene and Owens acted alone | People: Testimony and inferences (lookout conduct, statement "get in the house," driving away) support a reasonable jury verdict beyond a reasonable doubt for aider/abettor | Held: Yes. Under substantial‑evidence review, the record contains sufficient evidence a reasonable trier of fact could convict White of aiding and abetting. |
| Whether trial court could find by clear and convincing evidence a "substantial likelihood" that White's release would result in great bodily harm to others | White: No clear-and-convincing proof of a substantial likelihood; any risk is speculative and bail conditions could mitigate danger | People: Deliberate, daytime attack on a vulnerable stranger, coordinated conduct, encouragement to continue, and flight support a high‑probability risk of future great bodily harm | Held: Yes. Court applied deferential substantial‑evidence review to factual finding and concluded the record permits a reasonable trier of fact to find by clear and convincing evidence a substantial likelihood of future great bodily harm. |
| Whether the court had to find that no combination of bail conditions would suffice before remanding (relying on Salerno/Humphrey) | White: Trial court must determine no conditions could protect public safety or that monetary bail would be ineffective before ordering detention | People: State constitutional standard differs; no federal Salerno procedural requirement applies, and Humphrey (ability‑to‑pay context) is inapposite because the court made required detention findings | Held: No. Salerno's federal procedural formulation does not control state bail determinations here; Humphrey does not require such a pre‑detention conditions inquiry when the court makes the constitutional findings for remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Zaragoza, [citation="1 Cal.5th 21"] (review standard for sufficiency of evidence applies to "facts are evident or presumption great")
- People v. Hill, [citation="17 Cal.4th 800"] (definition of aiding and abetting)
- In re Application of Weinberg, [citation="177 Cal. 781"] (historical discussion of "facts are evident or the presumption great")
- In re Underwood, [citation="9 Cal.3d 345"] (historical rule barring public‑safety exception to bail prior to constitutional amendment)
- United States v. Salerno, [citation="481 U.S. 739"] (federal pretrial detention framework; discussed and distinguished)