People v. Haraszewski
137 Cal. Rptr. 3d 641
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Haraszewski was charged with 23 sex-crime counts involving four minors over a decade.
- Initial arrest followed a 12-year-old driving Haraszewski’s car; a warrantless search of the car yielded sex-related items and drives.
- Detectives reviewed contents, including thumb drives and memory cards, leading to videos and photos of minors; Coby disclosed sexual abuse.
- MySpace communications and writings recovered later showed ongoing sexual interest and planned trips with minors.
- Victims: Coby (12), Bryan G. (12), Darrell C. (11–12), Nolan F. (11–12); testimony described touching and sexual acts by Haraszewski.
- Defendant admitted past sexual relationships with some victims in his own defense, while denying others; prior conviction in 1996 preceded current charges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Fourth Amendment allowed the car search incident to arrest | People contends search was reasonable given evidence of crime. | Haraszewski argues search was unlawful and evidence should be suppressed. | Search upheld; evidence admissible; suppression denial affirmed. |
| Whether the jury instruction on posing or modeling under §311.4(c) was defective | People argues no requirement to prove director-level posing; Hobbs misapplied. | Haraszewski argues instruction lowered the burden by omitting directing element. | Instruction correct; no element requiring direct direction; Hobbs misapplied. |
| Whether the evidence supports the count for posing Coby under §311.4(c) | Evidence shows Haraszewski brought camera to nude beach and photographed Coby. | Coby testified no posing or direction; photos were candid. | Substantial evidence supports count 2; defendant posed or modeled Coby. |
| Whether the four §311.2(d) duplicating child pornography convictions were proper | Each act of duplicating with intent to distribute to a minor constitutes a separate offense. | Counts fragmented as multiple images; overbroad aggregation. | Permissible multiple convictions for separate acts; not fragmented into one offense. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hobbs, 152 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. App. 4th 2007) (holding no requirement to prove directing the pose for §311.4(c))
- People v. Shields, 199 Cal.App.4th 323 (Cal. App. 4th 2011) (authorizes separate convictions per media created under §311.4/c and §311.2(d))
- People v. Cochran, 28 Cal.4th 396 (Cal. 2002) (statutory interpretation of 311.4 generally and purpose of keeping production from exploitation)
- People v. Cantrell, 7 Cal.App.4th 523 (Cal. App. 1992) (part of the scheme to extinguish market for child pornography)
- People v. Duncan, 189 Cal.App.3d 1348 (Cal. App. 1987) (reproduction/production of child pornography within exploitation framework)
- People v. Hertzig, 156 Cal.App.4th 398 (Cal. App. 2007) (possession cases distinguishing possession from production in fragmentation analysis)
- People v. Manfredi, 169 Cal.App.4th 622 (Cal. App. 2008) (possession/duplication context distinguishing media-based offenses)