People v. Moore
211 Cal. App. 4th 1179
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Moore was convicted by jury of attempted second degree robbery and misdemeanor vandalism.
- The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Moore on three years' probation with jail time and fines.
- A probation condition prohibited Moore from owning, using, or possessing dangerous or deadly weapons, including firearms and other concealable weapons, without a knowledge requirement.
- The offense underlying the appeal occurred October 15, 2010, in Alhambra, where Moore attacked Juan Manuel Pineda Hernandez after a dispute over language and cigarettes.
- Moore admitted drinking, approached Pineda, grabbed the phone, broke it, and demanded or attempted money; Moore denied intent to rob and claimed only to have broken the phone.
- On appeal, Moore challenged the weapons prohibition as vague and lacking scienter; the court addressed whether modification was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the weapons probation condition is unconstitutionally vague | Moore argues lack of scienter renders it vague | Moore asserts no knowledge requirement is implicit | Condition is sufficiently precise; no explicit knowledge modification required |
| Whether an express knowledge requirement is necessary for the weapons condition | Moore relies on Freitas to require knowledge | Knowledge is implied; explicit addition unnecessary | Knowledge requirement is implied; no express modification needed |
| Whether Victor L. and Garcia require modification of the weapons condition | Victor L. and Garcia necessitate explicit notice to avoid overbreadth | Those precedents do not apply because the notice is adequate here | Not applicable; advance notice is provided and due process satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Freitas, 179 Cal.App.4th 747 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (modifies firearms probation with implied scienter)
- People v. Kim, 193 Cal.App.4th 836 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (implied knowledge requirement when statutes incorporate it)
- In re R.P., 176 Cal.App.4th 562 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (defines dangerous or deadly weapon for probation)
- Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (Cal. 2007) (requires explicit notice for rights-infringing probation conditions)
- People v. Patel, 196 Cal.App.4th 956 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (scienter cannot be punished absent knowledge; supports implied knowledge)
- Victor L., 182 Cal.App.4th 902 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (due process requires notice independent of willfulness for weapons condition)
- People v. Garcia, 19 Cal.App.4th 97 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (prohibition on association requires explicit knowledge unless rights implicated)