People v. Richards
B275518
| Cal. Ct. App. | Dec 15, 2017Background
- Jasmine Nicole Richards participated in a Black Lives Matter demonstration on Aug. 29, 2015; police were attempting to arrest Benita Escoe for an earlier restaurant battery.
- Demonstrators formed around Escoe and moved her into a park; officers planned to arrest Escoe when separated from the crowd.
- As officers approached, Richards urged the crowd to move as a unit, stepped between officers and Escoe, and physically pulled on Escoe while an officer tried to handcuff her; video recorded the brief altercation.
- Richards was convicted by a jury of attempted taking from lawful custody by means of a riot (Pen. Code §§ 405a, 664); sentenced to probation with 90 days jail.
- On appeal Richards argued (1) the court failed to give a sua sponte instruction on the lesser included offense of attempted rescue (§ 4550), (2) the court wrongly refused a mistake-of-fact instruction about lawful custody, and (3) certain evidentiary rulings were improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Richards) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attempted rescue (§ 4550) is a lesser included offense of attempted violation of § 405a | Not disputed below; argued severity of punishment means § 4550 is not lesser | § 4550 is a lesser included offense and trial court should have instructed sua sponte | Held: § 4550 is a lesser included offense; failure to instruct sua sponte was reversible error; conviction reversed and remanded with option to retry or accept reduced conviction |
| Whether the court erred in refusing a mistake-of-fact instruction that defendant believed custody was unlawful | Attempt crime does not require defendant’s knowledge that custody was lawful; public policy and precedent bar such a defense | Richards argued belief custody was unlawful negates specific intent to take from lawful custody | Held: No error—knowledge of lawfulness of custody is not an element of attempt under § 405a; mistake-of-fact instruction not warranted |
| Whether knowledge that the person was in police custody is required for attempt liability | Proof that defendant intended to take a person from police suffices; subjective belief about custody status is irrelevant | Richards argued she reasonably believed Escoe was not in custody and so lacked required intent | Held: No error—knowing the legal status of custody is not required where defendant intentionally attempted to take someone from police |
| Admissibility of (a) testimony about “PDL” gang reference and (b) Escoe’s no-contest pleas | Both items relevant to existence of riot/threat and to lawfulness of custody; not unduly prejudicial | Richards argued gang reference and plea evidence were irrelevant/prejudicial | Held: No abuse of discretion; both items admissible as relevant to riot element and rebutting defense |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Birks, 19 Cal.4th 108 (Cal. 1998) (court must instruct sua sponte on any lesser offense necessarily included when substantial evidence supports it)
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (Cal. 1998) (standard for when lesser-included instruction is required)
- People v. Jones, 19 Cal.App.3d 437 (Cal. Ct. App.) (distinction between anti-lynch statute and other rescue statutes; § 405a concerns taking by means of a riot)
- In re Maria D., 199 Cal.App.4th 109 (Cal. Ct. App.) (discussion of intent required for attempted lynching/related offenses)
- People v. Curtis, 70 Cal.2d 347 (Cal. 1969) (public policy precludes resisting unlawful arrest by force; § 834a abolished common-law right to resist unlawful arrest)
- People v. Kelly, 1 Cal.4th 495 (Cal. 1992) (when greater conviction reversed but lesser could be affirmed, prosecution given option to retry or accept reduction)