237 Cal. App. 4th 1
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Terrence Lee Yohner was convicted in 2009 of a lewd act on a child (Pen. Code § 288(a)); the victim was his stepgranddaughter. He completed probation in 2013.
- Penal Code § 290.46 requires the DOJ to publish certain sex offender information on a Megan’s Law website and permits limited exclusions for offenders who successfully completed probation and who were the victim’s “parent, stepparent, sibling, or grandparent.”
- Yohner applied for exclusion from the DOJ’s website; the DOJ denied the application because he was a stepgrandparent and the statute does not expressly include “stepgrandparent.”
- Yohner petitioned for a writ of mandate asking the trial court to order exclusion, arguing "grandparent" should be read to include stepgrandparents or, alternatively, that excluding stepgrandparents is unconstitutional.
- The trial court denied the petition; Yohner appealed. The Court of Appeal reviewed statutory interpretation and equal protection issues de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Yohner's Argument | DOJ's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the term "grandparent" in § 290.46(e)(2)(D)(i) includes stepgrandparents | "Grandparent" should be read to include stepgrandparents by implication; inclusion of "stepparent" shows legislature intended to cover close nonbiological relatives | Statute expressly lists "stepparent" separately; reading "grandparent" to include stepgrandparents renders "stepparent" surplusage and rewrites the statute | "Grandparent" does not include stepgrandparents; court must apply plain meaning and avoid rendering statutory terms surplusage |
| Whether excluding stepgrandparents from the exclusion violates equal protection | Yohner: grandparents and stepgrandparents are similarly situated; exclusion discriminates without sufficient justification | DOJ: grandparents and stepgrandparents are not similarly situated; limiting exclusion to closest relatives is rationally related to public safety and privacy interests | No equal protection violation; rational basis review applies and statute is rationally related to legitimate objectives |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. California Dept. of Justice, 173 Cal.App.4th 1095 (Cal. Ct. App.) (upholding § 290.46 exclusion limited to parents, stepparents, siblings, grandparents; rational basis review)
- Doe v. Brown, 177 Cal.App.4th 408 (Cal. Ct. App.) (rules on statutory interpretation standards and de novo review for such claims)
- In re Jodi B., 227 Cal.App.3d 1322 (Cal. Ct. App.) (distinguishing legal status of stepparent from biological or adoptive parent)
- Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2003) (disclosure based on conviction does not implicate a fundamental privacy interest requiring strict scrutiny)
- Burt v. County of Orange, 120 Cal.App.4th 273 (Cal. Ct. App.) (distinguishing contexts where due process/familial privacy require opportunity to rebut agency reports)
- Williams v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 337 (Cal. 1993) (avoid interpretations that render statutory language surplusage)
- Rojas v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.4th 407 (Cal. 2004) (expressio unius est exclusio alterius principle)
- Magness v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.4th 270 (Cal. 2012) (line-drawing in legislation not inherently absurd)