People v. Oswaldo R.
217 Cal. Rptr. 3d 404
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- Juvenile (Oswaldo R.), then 14, was a declared ward after admitting misdemeanor battery; later admitted to misdemeanor vandalism on plea agreement.
- Juvenile court continued wardship, removed him from parental custody, and committed him to probation with several gang-related conditions.
- Probation condition at issue prohibited: (1) being in specific locations "known by him" where gang members meet or where gang-related activity occurs (or as specified in writing by probation officer/parent), and (2) participating in "any gang-related activity." The first two clauses include an express knowledge requirement; the participation clause does not.
- Appellant appealed solely challenging the clause forbidding participation in "any gang-related activity," arguing it is facially vague because it lacks an express knowledge requirement and does not define what "gang-related activity" means.
- The Court of Appeal reviewed precedent on vagueness and mens rea for probation conditions and affirmed, holding the participation clause was not unconstitutionally vague when read in context of applicable gang statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Oswaldo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a probation condition forbidding participation in "any gang-related activity" is unconstitutionally vague for lack of an express knowledge requirement | The condition is sufficiently definite; context (statutory definitions of "criminal street gang" and "pattern of criminal gang activity") supplies meaning and Hall presumes an implicit knowing requirement when appropriate | The term "gang-related activity" is overbroad and unclear; without an express scienter the minor cannot know what conduct is forbidden and may be criminalized for innocent acts | Affirmed: not unconstitutionally vague — read in statutory and factual context the phrase targets activities facilitating or involving criminal conduct by gangs and affords reasonable certainty |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Victor L., 182 Cal.App.4th 902 (discusses need for knowledge requirement where condition fails to give notice of prohibited areas or persons)
- In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (probation conditions that delegate undefined discretion to probation officers may be modified; pure questions of law remediable on appeal)
- People v. Hall, 2 Cal.5th 494 (probation conditions barring possession construed to include an implicit knowing possession requirement; courts may rely on judicial construction)
- People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna, 14 Cal.4th 1090 (vagueness analysis considers broader context and other definable sources to make terms reasonably certain)