People v. Singh
198 Cal. App. 4th 364
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- This case asks whether mandatory sex offender registration under §290 for §288(a) offenders violates equal protection when registration for other sex offenses is discretionary.
- In January 2006, a Riverside County sting using Perverted Justice and NBC's Dateline targeted online predators.
- A volunteer posed as a 12-year-old in chats; Singh engaged in sexually explicit conversation and agreed to meet at Julie's house.
- Singh was charged with attempted lewd and lascivious acts on a child under 14 (§288(a)); the trial court entered judgment and ordered registration.
- Singh challenged the registration requirement as unconstitutional under equal protection, and challenged sufficiency of the evidence regarding intent for §288(a).
- The reviewing court held (1) substantial evidence supported conviction and (2) mandatory §290 registration for §288(a) offenders does not violate equal protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal protection challenge to §290 for §288(a). | Singh argues §290 targets similarly situated offenders (261.5/288a/289) | State argues §288(a) is distinct due to age limit and specific intent | Rational basis upheld; not similarly situated; §288(a) justifies registration |
| Sufficiency of evidence on intent for §288(a). | Singh asserts multiple reasonable inferences about intent | Prosecution shows intentional arousal/gratification and predatory conduct | Substantial evidence supports intent; credibility for jury to resolve inference |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Levesque, 35 Cal.App.4th 530 (Cal. App. 4th 1995) (circumstantial evidence supports intent under §288(a))
- People v. Memro, 38 Cal.3d 658 (Cal. 1985) (burden to prove intent and direct step under §288(a))
- People v. Kennedy, 180 Cal.App.4th 403 (Cal. App. 4th 2009) (higher mental state for §288(a) distinguishes from §261.5/§288a(b)(l))
- Hofsheier, 37 Cal.4th 1185 (Cal. 2006) (equal protection in registration not applicable to all allowed offenses; distinguishable facts)
- Ranscht, 173 Cal.App.4th 1369 (Cal. App. 4th 2009) (equal protection where §288(a) offender may be similarly situated to §261.5 offender; focus on intent types)
- Alvarado, 187 Cal.App.4th 72 (Cal. App. 4th 2010) (288(a) provides targeted protection; rational basis for registration)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court 1979) (substantial evidence standard for conviction)
- People v. Johnson, 26 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1980) (review evidence in light most favorable to judgment)
- People v. Perez, 2 Cal.4th 1117 (Cal. 1992) (affirmation of standard for reviewing jury verdicts)