23 Cal.App.5th 1242
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2015 a Vallejo detective created a fictitious Facebook profile for a 17‑year‑old prostitute ("Rachel Irving"); Shields friended and exchanged messages with the profile offering guidance, fees, an ID, and arranging a meetup.
- Detective officers conducted a sting; Shields arrived at the arranged pickup, was stopped, and his phone linked him to the Irving profile.
- Shields was charged and tried; a jury convicted him of three felonies: human trafficking of a minor (Pen. Code §236.1(c)), pandering (§266i), and attempted pimping of a minor over 16 (§§664, 266h(b)(1)).
- At trial the court gave conflicting instructions: it instructed on attempt (CALCRIM No. 460) but also on the completed offense of §236.1(c) (CALCRIM No. 1244) and added language stating mistake as to age and whether the victim was an undercover officer did not matter.
- Shields argued on appeal that §236.1(c) is unconstitutional for not requiring specific intent to target a minor and that the mistake‑of‑age instruction was erroneous; he also argued the conviction must fail because there was no actual minor victim (the victim was fictitious/undercover).
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the pandering and attempted pimping convictions, rejected the constitutional and instruction challenges to §236.1(c) and §266h instruction, but reversed the §236.1(c) conviction because the completed offense requires an actual person under 18 and none existed; remanded for further proceedings and resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Shields) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of §236.1(c) attempt language | §236.1(c) valid; statute defines elements and bars mistake‑of‑age; protects minors | §236.1(c) unconstitutional because it allows conviction without proof defendant specifically intended to target a minor (specific intent element omitted) | Court rejects constitutional challenge: §236.1(c) defines a completed offense that includes "attempt" language and does not require knowledge of victim's age; §236.1(f) lawfully precludes mistake‑of‑age defense. |
| Jury instruction that mistake about victim's age is not a defense to §236.1(c) | Instruction correctly reflects §236.1(f) and statutory purpose of protecting minors | Instruction omitted element by allowing conviction for an attempt without proof defendant intended to target a minor | Court holds instruction as given (per CALCRIM) was legally correct but notes jury was given conflicting attempt instructions. |
| Whether conviction for completed §236.1(c) can stand when no actual minor existed (sting fictitious profile) | People argued attempt‑prong language and attempt law permit conviction despite no real minor; factual impossibility not a defense to attempt | Shields argued completed offense requires an actual person under 18, so conviction impossible where victim was fictitious/undercover | Court reverses §236.1(c) conviction: completed offense requires an actual person under 18; where no real minor existed, only an attempt (if specific intent to traffic a minor existed) could be charged, but jury verdict cannot be reformed to an attempt. |
| Instruction that mistake about age is not a defense to attempted pimping (§§664/266h) | Branch and statutory aims support rejecting mistake‑of‑age defense for pimping/pandering of minors | Shields argued eliminating mistake defense effectively removed required specific intent for attempt | Court affirms attempted pimping: any instructional error was harmless because evidence showed Shields knew Irving said she was 17 and acted on that belief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (U.S. 1977) (prosecution must prove elements of offense beyond reasonable doubt)
- In re Aarica S., 223 Cal.App.4th 1480 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (Proposition 35/CASE Act purpose: treat trafficked minors as victims; minors incapable of consenting)
- People v. Hanna, 218 Cal.App.4th 455 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (attempt requires specific intent; mistake of age may be defense to attempt where statute does not define completed offense to include attempts)
- People v. Branch, 184 Cal.App.4th 516 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (ignorance as to age does not negate criminality of pimping/pandering; age affects punishment not criminality)
- People v. Reed, 53 Cal.App.4th 389 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (factual impossibility not a defense to attempt; intended victim imaginary or undercover generally yields attempt, not completed offense)
- People v. Robinson, 63 Cal.4th 200 (Cal. 2016) (appellate courts cannot modify verdict to a lesser included offense by making additional factual findings)