People v. M.D.
231 Cal. App. 4th 993
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- M.D., a minor, appeals after wardship for loitering with intent to prostitute.
- Motion in limine under Evidence Code 1161 sought to exclude trafficking-based evidence.
- Evidence presented by police described 16-year-old with an adult in prostitution area in Concord.
- Court found no trafficking victim status; jurisdictional finding that minor loitered with intent to prostitute.
- Probation included school attendance and campus-avoidance conditions; appeal challenges those conditions.
- Appellate court affirms all orders; finds no reversible error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden of proof under 1161 | M.D. argues burden should be on DA or presume victim status. | People contends minor bears burden or no presumption; policy favors clarity. | Court kept burden on minor; no error |
| Sufficiency to prove trafficking victim | Evidence supported victim status; exclusion warranted. | Evidence insufficient to compel trafficking-victim finding as matter of law. | Evidence insufficient to compel trafficking finding |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel should have introduced evidence of trafficking persuasion (BART ticket). | No prejudice shown; evidence would not have changed outcome. | No prejudicial ineffective assistance shown |
| Probation conditions vagueness | Conditions like “do well in school” and campus-avoidance are unconstitutionally vague. | Conditions clear under ordinary interpretation and clarified by court commentary. | Probation conditions not unconstitutionally vague |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Badgett, 10 Cal.4th 330 (Cal. 1995) (burden allocation in evidentiary privileges)
- In re I.W., 180 Cal.App.4th 1517 (Cal. App. Dist. 4th 2009) (standard for reviewing sufficiency on factual findings)
- In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (Cal. 2007) (probation condition vagueness standard; deference to explanations)
- Wong v. Belmontes, 558 U.S. 15 (U.S. 2010) (ineffective assistance prejudice standard; Strickland guidance)
- In re Antonio R., 78 Cal.App.4th 937 (Cal. App. 2000) (juvenile probation discretion and rehabilitative focus)
- People v. Kim, 193 Cal.App.4th 836 (Cal. App. 2011) (vagueness analysis for probation constraints)
- In re Ramon M., 178 Cal.App.4th 665 (Cal. App. 2009) (interpretation and clarity of probation terms)