People v. Keister
198 Cal. App. 4th 442
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Keister molested K., then 12–14 years old, over a two-year period while he was the boyfriend of K.'s mother and they lived together; writings and objects were left in K.'s bedroom.
- K. was 15 at trial; the state charged Keister with four counts of lewd act on a child, one battery, and eight counts of contacting or communicating with a minor with the intent to commit an enumerated sex offense under § 288.3(a).
- § 288.3(a) criminalizes contacting or communicating with a minor, or attempting to, with knowledge or reasonable should know the person is a minor, with intent to commit an enumerated offense.
- Defendant appeals five constitutional challenges to § 288.3 (including to Prop. 83) and a claim that § 288.4 is a lesser included offense of § 288.3; the court rejects each challenge and affirms the judgment.
- Defense conceded guilt on two lewd acts and all counts except the one based on the book Nervous, and defendant wrote apology letters; the mother reported suspicions to CPS and police interviewed both sides.
- Evidence included explicit letters, a vibrator left by defendant, and multiple instances of touching or otherwise abusing K., with police interviews corroborating the conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutional challenges to § 288.3 | Keister asserts five challenges: travel freedom, vagueness, free speech, equal protection, and Prop. 83 single-subject. | Section 288.3 improperly restricts travel, is vague, infringes speech, violates equal protection, and Prop. 83 violates single-subject rule. | No merit to any challenge. |
| Travel freedom restriction | Statute improperly restricts movement of sexual predators. | No requirement that intent to commit a future act be immediate; restriction reasonable. | Not unconstitutional. |
| Vagueness | Statute invites subjective interpretations of 'contact' with a minor. | Requirements are clear: contact/communication with minor plus specific intent to commit an enumerated offense. | Not void for vagueness. |
| Free speech | Statute punishes protected speech by those attracted to minors. | Only speech with unlawful intent to commit an enumerated offense is punished. | Not unconstitutional; limits protected when coupled with intent and knowledge. |
| Equal protection | Treats potential child molesters differently as a 'thought crime' compared with thieves or muggers. | Offenders are not similarly situated; statute targets specific conduct with intent regarding minors. | Passes equal protection analysis. |
| Single-subject rule (Prop. 83) | Prop. 83 contains disparate topics beyond one subject. | Provisions share a common theme of protecting the public from sex offenders. | No single-subject violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.S., 10 Cal.4th 698 (1995) (imminence not required for threat punishment; focus on identity of the criminal act)
- Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) (travel freedom not unconstitutionally burdened by reasonable restrictions)
- United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008) (vagueness and standard for defining incriminating facts)
- People v. Hsu, 82 Cal.App.4th 976 (2000) (upholding § 288.2 restrictions on protected speech involving minors)
- Manduley v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.4th 537 (2002) (single-subject rule analysis for propositions; common theme required)
- People v. Buffington, 74 Cal.App.4th 1149 (1999) (equal protection discussion on similarly situated persons)