4 Cal. App. 5th 1235
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Appellant (age 17) was charged in juvenile wardship petitions with violating Penal Code §647(b) for soliciting/agreeing to engage in prostitution on two dates; prosecutions relied on undercover officers’ testimony.
- Appellant moved under Evidence Code §1161 (added by Prop. 35/CASE Act) to exclude evidence that she engaged in a commercial sexual act because she was a victim of human trafficking; court-appointed expert concluded the acts were the result of trafficking.
- Prosecutor and trial court reasoned §1161 applies only to proof of a “commercial sex act” as defined in Penal Code §236.1(h)(2) (requires receipt of value), and that §1161 did not apply in juvenile proceedings; thus evidence was admitted and petitions were sustained.
- Appellant appealed; court considered (1) whether §1161 applies in juvenile delinquency proceedings, and (2) whether “commercial sexual act” in §1161 includes solicitation/prostitution conduct criminalized by §647(b) even if no payment occurred.
- The Court of Appeal held §1161 applies in juvenile proceedings and construed “commercial sexual act” in §1161 to encompass solicitation/prostitution conduct (including §647(b) offenses resulting from trafficking), reversing the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Evidence Code §1161 applies in juvenile delinquency proceedings | AG: §1161 applies to minors who engaged in commercial sexual acts as trafficking victims | Trial court: §1161 references "criminal liability" and juvenile proceedings are not criminal, so it doesn’t apply | Court: §1161 applies in juvenile proceedings; Evidence Code governs admissibility in juvenile hearings (Welf. & Inst. Code §701) and policy/Winship reasoning supports application |
| Whether "commercial sexual act" in §1161 means the §236.1(h)(2) definition requiring receipt of value, excluding uncompensated solicitation under §647(b) | DA/Trial court: §1161 limited to acts meeting Penal Code §236.1(h)(2) (requires payment), so §647(b) solicitation not protected | Appellant: "commercial sexual act" should be read broadly to include solicitation/prostitution conduct caused by trafficking even if no payment occurred | Court: Phrase is ambiguous; legislative history and purpose of CASE Act show §1161 protects prostitution/solicitation resulting from trafficking; §647(b) conduct is covered; exclusion should apply |
| Whether admitting solicitation evidence would frustrate CASE Act objectives | Appellant: admission defeats purpose of treating trafficked minors as victims and impedes defense | State: limiting §1161 to paid acts avoids excluding evidence in other serious prosecutions (e.g., murder) | Court: legislative amendment (AB 694) clarified §1161 was intended to protect victims prosecuted for prostitution; adopting DA’s narrow reading would produce absurd result and undermine CASE Act |
| Whether the trial court’s denial of the §1161 motion was reversible error | Appellant: denial barred exclusion of trafficking-linked prostitution evidence and warrants reversal | Respondent: initially argued §1161 inapplicable; later conceded error | Court: Reversed trial court’s ruling and judgment; §1161 exclusion should have applied to the §647(b) prosecutions arising from trafficking |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.D., 231 Cal.App.4th 993 (2014) (discusses CASE Act issues in juvenile context)
- In re Aarica S., 223 Cal.App.4th 1480 (2014) (juvenile CASE Act background; custodial trafficking inquiry)
- In re M.V., 225 Cal.App.4th 1495 (2014) (prostitution statutes and juvenile prosecutions)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) (reasoning that delinquency labels do not eliminate protections analogous to criminal defendants)
- People v. Casas, 181 Cal.App.3d 889 (1986) (construed sexual-conduct exclusions broadly; informs interpretation of "commercial sexual act")
- Kim v. Superior Court, 136 Cal.App.4th 937 (2006) (explains §647(b) solicitation conduct and preludial commercial/sexual aspects)