477 P.3d 579
Cal.2020Background:
- Undercover detective posed online as "Bella," a 17-year-old, and exchanged texts/calls with Antonio Moses offering to recruit her for prostitution and to increase earnings.
- Moses discussed recruitment, gave his number, asked Bella’s birthday/age, arranged a meeting at which police arrested him; the target was an undercover officer, not an actual minor.
- At trial Moses was convicted of human trafficking of a minor (Pen. Code §236.1(c)), attempted pimping of a minor, and pandering; sentenced to 24 years.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the §236.1(c) conviction, holding that the attempt clause requires an actual minor victim (adopting Shields), creating a split with other appellate decisions.
- The California Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether the attempt language in §236.1(c) incorporates the ordinary law of attempt (so factual impossibility is no defense) and whether specific intent to induce a minor was required.
- The Supreme Court held that §236.1(c) incorporates the settled definition of attempt (Pen. Code §21a): a defendant who intends to induce a minor and takes a direct but unsuccessful step can be guilty even if the target is not actually a minor; remanded for appellate consideration of jury-instruction issues.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §236.1(c)'s "attempts" requires an actual minor victim or allows conviction when target is an undercover adult | "Attempts" modifies the entire clause (including "a person who is a minor"); factual impossibility is no defense under traditional attempt law, so no actual minor needed | The grammar makes "a person who is a minor" a distinct element; an actual minor is required to convict under the attempt prong | Held: "attempts" incorporated traditional attempt law (Pen. Code §21a); defendant may be convicted if he intended to induce a minor and took a direct act even if the target was not actually a minor |
| Whether specific intent to induce a minor (not merely intent to commit underlying enumerated offenses) is required when no actual minor exists | The People urged the required specific intent could be only intent to effect/maintain the enumerated violation | Moses argued the defendant must specifically intend to induce a minor (i.e., intend the victim be a minor) | Held: Specific intent to induce a minor is required (at least when no actual minor exists); factual impossibility is not a defense but intent to target a minor must be proven |
| Whether the conviction can be reduced to attempted trafficking or requires remand for instructional issues (jury finding of specific intent) | People argued court of appeal erred to reverse rather than consider instructional sufficiency/forfeiture/harmlessness | Moses argued jury instructions failed to require the specific intent needed for an attempt conviction | Held: Supreme Court remanded to Court of Appeal to decide Moses’s instructional claims in the first instance (forfeiture, instruction reading, harmlessness) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Dillon, 34 Cal.3d 441 (discussing societal purpose of attempt doctrine and justification for punishing dangerous attempts)
- People v. Chandler, 60 Cal.4th 508 (factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt)
- People v. Reed, 53 Cal.App.4th 389 (attempt liability where defendant targeted undercover decoy posing as a child)
- People v. Beardslee, 53 Cal.3d 68 (attempt conviction principles and impossibility doctrine)
- People v. Rojas, 55 Cal.2d 252 (attempt to receive stolen property upheld despite factual impossibility)
- People v. Bailey, 54 Cal.4th 740 (use of §21a to define specific intent where attempt language is incorporated in statute)
- People v. Colantuono, 7 Cal.4th 206 (distinguishing assault’s historical use of "attempt" from modern attempt doctrine)
- People v. Korwin, 36 Cal.App.5th 682 (holding lack of an actual minor is not a defense where attempt language is incorporated)
- People v. Clark, 43 Cal.App.5th 270 (contrasting appellate view that §236.1(c) penalizes attempts against decoys; supported broader reading)