People v. Moses
199 Cal. App. 4th 374
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Moses was convicted of a single count of violating Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a).
- Defendant challenges probation conditions imposed by the trial court, not just the conviction.
- Court recognizes substantial evidence of defendant's specific intent to gratify sexual desires as to the charged conduct.
- Trial court's modification of a standard jury instruction on unanimity is not error in this context.
- The court identifies probation conditions as overbroad and uninformative, directing revisions and strikes.
- Opinion publishes the probation-condition modifications because the form at issue is a long-standing Orange County standard form used statewide.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do probation conditions lack a knowledge requirement, rendering them vague or overbroad? | Moses argues several conditions are vague without knowledge mens rea. | Moses contends the conditions fail to inform him what he must know to comply. | Yes; modify to include a knowledge requirement across affected conditions. |
| Should probation conditions 3 and 11 be struck for being overly broad and unrelated to the offense? | Moses argues these conditions unduly restrict freedom of movement. | AG agrees these conditions are overly broad. | Yes; strike conditions 3 and 11. |
| Is probation condition 30 overbroad for restricting marriage and lacking knowledge, and must it include knowledge or be struck of the marriage provision? | Moses argues it violates right to marry and is vague. | AG suggests a knowledge element may cure vagueness. | Strike the phrase 'or marry' to comply with the right to marry; require knowledge. |
| Must an orally imposed probation condition not in the minute order be added and aligned with knowledge requirements? | Condition not reflected in minute order creates enforceability problems. | Court should ensure minute order matches oral pronouncement and include knowledge. | Yes; correct minute order and add knowledge element to the condition. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (Cal. 2007) (requires knowledge/mental state to certain probation conditions)
- In re Victor L., 182 Cal.App.4th 902 (Cal. App. 2010) (probation conditions require knowledge where applicable)
- People v. Turner, 155 Cal.App.4th 1432 (Cal. App. 2007) (prohibition on vague 'sexually oriented' material not inherently vague)
- People v. Norris, 88 Cal.App.3d Supp. 32 (Cal. App. 1978) (probation restrictions must relate to crime and be specific to reduce vagueness)