People v. Singh CA3
C088997
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 28, 2021Background
- Defendant Harpreet Singh was tried and convicted following allegations that he sexually assaulted M.D. in July 2016 and later conspired to and did attempt to dissuade her from testifying by abducting her at gunpoint in October 2017.
- During the October 2017 incident M.D. was grabbed, threatened, driven 30–45 minutes, forced to repeat a recantation, and told not to appear in court; a GPS tracker was later found on her car.
- Charges included forcible sexual offenses, conspiracy and dissuading a witness, and aggravated kidnapping under Penal Code § 209(a) (kidnapping for ransom, reward, extortion or other valuable thing).
- At trial the prosecutor argued the kidnapping was for extortion because preventing M.D. from testifying (or procuring her recantation) was a thing of value—i.e., “property” under the extortion statute. The jury convicted on a lesser included assault count and on aggravated kidnapping; defendant received a lengthy prison term.
- On appeal the court addressed (1) instructional claims about the specific-intent element and intoxication/mistake-of-fact defenses for the § 220 assault conviction, and (2) whether testimony/ability to testify is “property” for purposes of kidnapping-for-extortion and whether the kidnapping conviction must be reduced.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a victim’s right/ability to testify (or a recantation) is “property” under the extortion statute for kidnapping-for-extortion | Prosecutor: broad extortion/property definitions encompass intangible benefits; preventing testimony or procuring recantation is a thing of value | Singh: testimony/recantation is not property because the charging and prosecutorial decisions are under public (prosecutor) control; victim cannot exclusively possess or dispose of the prosecution/witness function | Reversed kidnapping-for-extortion conviction for insufficient evidence of the property element; testimony/recantation is not property under former § 518; conviction modified to simple kidnapping (§ 207) and remanded for resentencing |
| Sufficiency/adequacy of jury instructions on § 220 assault-with-intent (specific intent to commit sexual penetration without consent) | People: CALCRIM Nos. 890 and 1045 read together adequately require lack of consent and thus the specific intent element | Singh: CALCRIM 890 failed to instruct that defendant must intend to act without consent; court also erred by not instructing on voluntary intoxication/unreasonable mistake-of-fact for specific intent | Court affirmed: instructions were adequate when read together; defendant’s Mayberry/mistake-of-fact claim forfeited by defense tactical choice; insufficient evidence to require intoxication instruction |
| Whether trial court erred by not instructing on simple kidnapping as a lesser included offense of aggravated kidnapping | People: argued aggravated kidnapping was proper theory; court earlier declined simple kidnapping instruction | Singh: simple kidnapping is a lesser included offense and trial court should have instructed | Court did not decide instructional duty; on appellate review modified conviction to simple kidnapping under the accusatory-pleading test because preliminary-hearing evidence showed substantial asportation |
| Whether trial court should have defined "property" for the jury in context of extortion/kidnapping | People: relied on statutory/precedent definitions and prosecutor argument | Singh: requested definition so jury could not treat testimony as property | Court did not reach this issue after resolving insufficiency of evidence; unnecessary once conviction modified |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kozlowski, 96 Cal.App.4th 853 (Court explained limits to what constitutes property under extortion law)
- People v. Dillon, 174 Cal.App.4th 1367 (discussed how CALCRIM Nos. 890 and 1045 must be read together for intent/consent issues)
- People v. Mayberry, 15 Cal.3d 143 (Mayberry mistake-of-fact defense; reasonable belief of consent negates wrongful intent)
- People v. Davis, 10 Cal.4th 463 (discusses the specific-intent element of § 220)
- People v. Navarro, 40 Cal.4th 668 (authority for modifying a conviction to a lesser included offense on appeal)
- People v. Martinez, 20 Cal.4th 225 (asportation/substantial movement analysis for kidnapping)
- Desny v. Wilder, 46 Cal.2d 715 (discussion of the right to exclude as an element of property)