People v. N.C.People v. N.C.
KLINE, P. J.—The Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act (CASE Act), enacted by the voters of the state as Proposition 35 at the general election on November 6, 2012,1 increased penalties for human trafficking, authorized the collection of fines to be used for victim services and law enforcement, required persons convicted of trafficking to register as sex offenders, and required such offenders to provide information regarding Internet access and identities they use in online activities. The CASE Act also added
Appellant, a 17-year-old victim of human trafficking, was charged with prostitution under
At the commencement of the jurisdictional hearing, appellant moved under section 1161 to exclude all evidence sought to be introduced by the district attorney to show that she solicited acts of prostitution in violation of
Accepting that argument, and also because it believed section 1161 inapplicable in juvenile proceedings, the trial court denied appellant’s motion to exclude.
Finding that section 1161 does apply in juvenile proceedings, and that the trial court’s acceptance of the prosecutor’s interpretation of that statute would virtually wipe out a significant protection afforded victims of human trafficking by the CASE Act, we shall reverse the judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
On May 28, 2015,4 the Los Angeles County District Attorney filed a wardship petition (
On June 10, appellant moved under section 1161 to exclude all evidence the district attorney planned to introduce to prove she engaged in commercial sexual acts, because she was a “victim of human trafficking,” who had been coerced into performing those acts by a pimp who was a human trafficker within the meaning of
Before the presentation of evidence, the district attorney argued that the exclusion of evidence authorized by section 1161 did not apply to appellant because it only applies to evidence offered to prove the commission of a “commercial sexual act,” and neither petition alleged she had engaged in any such act. The acts with which appellant was charged, the district attorney emphasized, were not committed in return for “anything of value given or received by any person,” as required by the definition of “commercial sex act” set forth in
The trial court elected to defer ruling on that issue, and proceed with an evidentiary hearing, because it felt it appropriate to “make a record” with respect to two threshold legal questions: (1) whether section 1161 applies only in criminal cases and not in juvenile proceedings,7 and (2) whether, even
The court heard the testimony of the two undercover police officers and also that of Nadeah Vali, an expert on human trafficking appointed by the court.
Undercover Los Angeles Police Officer Peter Ruiz, who testified with respect to the facts alleged in Petition A, stated that on May 12, while a member of a task force monitoring prostitution near the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and Nordhoff Street “known for prostitution,” he approached appellant, who appeared to be in her early 20’s, she told him to meet her around the corner, which he did, and she then entered his unmarked car. After a discussion in which appellant and Ruiz discussed various types of sexual acts and the price Ruiz would have to pay for each act or combination of acts, appellant agreed to engage in “sex and a blowjob” for $60. Appellant told Officer Ruiz she had a room in a hotel at Sepulveda and Tupper Street and told him to drive there. When they arrived at the hotel’s parking lot, appellant was arrested by other members of the task force. The police contacted appellant’s mother, who lived in Antioch in Contra Costa County, and appellant was released to her the day after she was arrested.
Undercover Los Angeles Police Officer Marcos Gutierrez, a member of an undercover task force monitoring prostitution near the intersection of Sepulveda and Wyandotte Streets in Los Angeles, testified regarding the allegations of Petition B. He stated that on May 27, while he was posing as a “john,” appellant looked in his direction, walked over to the open window on the passenger side of his unmarked car, and stated that “she was only doing blow jobs” that night. He said “O.K.,” asked how much that would cost, and was told $40. Gutierrez drove the two of them to a location he and other
Nadeah Vali, a court-appointed expert on human and sexual trafficking, was asked to assess whether appellant was a “victim of human trafficking” within the meaning of section 1161. After interviewing appellant and familiarizing herself with police reports regarding appellant’s present and prior arrests, and the probation reports relating to her detention and pre-plea hearings, Vali concluded that appellant had been exploited by two pimps, one known only as Victor, who had previously coerced her into engaging in prostitution in Oakland, and another known only as Michael, who later exploited her that same way in Los Angeles at the time she was arrested by Officers Ruiz and Gutierrez. In Vali’s opinion, appellant “exhibit[ed] the indicators of being a victim of human trafficking,” in that she exhibited “severe trauma” at the hands of “a third party exploiter” who controlled her choices and actions, abused her, transported her to and from certain locations, coerced her into engaging in sexual acts, and confiscated the money she earned as a result of those acts.8 Vali’s testimony established, and it is undisputed, that appellant committed the acts with which she was charged “as a result of being a victim of human trafficking.” (§ 1161, subd. (a).)
Although, without objection from the district attorney, the court found appellant to have committed the charged acts “as a result of being a victim of human trafficking,” it nevertheless denied her motion to exclude evidence after concluding that, as matters of law,
On July 15, appellant timely filed a notice of appeal in the Los Angeles County Superior Court from the order finding true the allegations of the delinquency petitions.
On November 2, the California Supreme Court ordered the notice of appeal filed by appellant in the Second Appellate District transferred to this court.
The appeal is from the orders of the Los Angeles County Juvenile Court on June 16 and 24, sustaining the allegations of Petitions A and B that appellant committed the offenses of soliciting, engaging, or agreeing to engage, in prostitution, in violation of
DISCUSSION
I.
Section 1161 Applies in Juvenile Proceedings
The trial court noted that several judicial opinions “touch upon” the issue of whether section 1161 applies in delinquency proceedings, citing In re M.D. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 993 [181 Cal.Rptr.3d 761], In re Aarica S. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1480 [168 Cal.Rptr.3d 136], and In re M.V. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1495 [171 Cal.Rptr.3d 519], but felt none actually addressed the purely legal issue. “They simply discuss it and suggest that it’s an issue for another day.” Observing that “[t]his may well be that other day,” the court stated that “since I’m ruling that [section] 1161 does not apply to delinquency proceedings, it’s important for me to let the Court of Appeal know why I’m thinking that.” The court explained its thoughts as follows:
“As delinquency judges and advocates, our responsibility is not to punish a person who commits a crime. It is, rather, to rehabilitate and protect those
“I think it’s great that [appellant’s] grandparents are willing to take care of her in these uncertain and difficult times, but as a judge who has observed [appellant’s] history, my biggest concern, and it’s a concern in all these sorts of cases, is that without court supervision, without becoming either a 300 or 602 ward, there is no incentive for her to follow through. She has not yet reached the maturity level that would satisfy any reasonable judge in believing that she might not run.” Believing appellant lacks “real adult supervision,” the court stated that “the bottom line is, without some kind of jurisdiction over the minor, this minor is in serious danger of, well, falling by the wayside, whether she runs away, whether she re-engages with one of the pimps that have been testified about. There is no way for a juvenile judge to protect a minor like this without a declaration of wardship, without gaining jurisdiction over the minor.”
Moving on to the text of section 1161, the trial judge placed great weight on the fact that the “[e]vidence that a victim of human trafficking . . . has engaged in any commercial sexual act,” which is excluded by the statute, is that which “prove[s] the victim’s criminal liability.” (Italics added.) As the court stated, “I think it’s absolutely vital for me and the Court of Appeal to consider that word ‘criminal.’ ” The court emphasized that “if the Legislature had decided that [section 1161] should apply to delinquency proceedings, they could have clearly stated that.” The court acknowledged the many similarities between the juvenile justice system and the criminal justice system, but it was also “mindful of the fact that there are significant differences, and one of the most important differences is that we adhere to protect [a juvenile] from herself, so to speak in times of trouble. [¶] And so in an effort to prevent [appellant] from becoming essentially a revolving door where she gets off the bus at someplace between here and home and reconnects with a pimp, it’s important for me to adopt the position that [section 1161] can’t absolve her from a declaration of wardship.”
The trial court found
The trial court’s determination is clearly unsustainable.
Finally, one of the chief purposes of the CASE Act is to protect minors, as the crime of “human trafficking” is specifically made applicable to “[a]ny person who causes, induces, or persuades, or attempts to cause, induce, or persuade, a person who is a minor at the time of commission of the offense to engage in a commercial sex act, with the intent to effect or maintain a violation of [various specified sexual crimes].” (
In any case, the question whether section 1161 applies in juvenile proceedings charging minors with commercial sexual acts will soon become academic. On September 26, 2016, the Governor approved and filed with the Secretary of State, Senate Bill No. 1322 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.), which amends
II.
Admitting Evidence of Conduct Punishable Under Penal Code Section 647, Subdivision (b), in Prosecutions of Victims of Human Trafficking for Sexual Acts Coerced by a Trafficker Would Deny Such Victims Protection Clearly Intended by the CASE Act and Be Absurd
The Attorney General agrees appellant committed the charged offenses “as a result of being a victim of human trafficking,” but claimed in her brief that this case is not within the ambit of section 1161 because, as the trial court agreed, appellant was not charged with a “commercial sexual act,” as defined by
The issue before us is whether the “commercial sexual act” referred to in section 1161 is the same as the “commercial sex act” defined in
We review matters of statutory interpretation de novo. (Carver v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 132, 142 [118 Cal.Rptr.2d 569].) Where the issue involves the proper interpretation of a statute and its application to undisputed facts our review is independent. (Smith v. Rae-Venter Law Group (2002) 29 Cal.4th 345, 357 [127 Cal.Rptr.2d 516, 58 P.3d 367].) “Initially, ‘[a]s in any case of statutory interpretation, our task is to determine afresh the intent of the Legislature by construing in context the language of the statute.’ [Citation.] In determining such intent, we begin with the language of the statute itself. [Citation.] That is, we look first to the words the Legislature used, giving them their usual and ordinary meaning. [Citation.] ‘If there is no ambiguity in the language of the statute, “then the Legislature is presumed to have meant what it said, and the plain meaning of the language governs.” ’ [Citation.] ‘But when the statutory language is ambiguous, “the court may examine the context in which the language appears, adopting the construction that best harmonizes the statute internally and with related statutes.” ’ ” (People v. Superior Court (Zamudio) (2000) 23 Cal.4th 183, 192-193 [96 Cal.Rptr.2d 463, 999 P.2d 686].)
As later described (see discussion, post, at p. 1252, fn. 15), after the close of briefing, we determined that the legislative history of the 2013 amendment of section 1161, which was neither included in the record before us nor described in the briefs, was a matter of substantial consequence to the determination of this appeal. Accordingly, as required by
Casas involved
We agree that Casas calls for a more expansive interpretation of the phrase “commercial sexual act” than the construction adopted by the trial court. The phrase contemplates “the practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment,” which is the Oxford English Dictionary definition of “prostitution.” Prostitution invariably commences, as it did in this case, with a discussion between the parties of the sexual activity or activities offered by one party and at what cost to the other party, an agreement as to the act and reciprocal payment, and conduct indicating a specific intention to perform the agreement. Because this preludial conduct criminalized by
Although
We recognize that
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that, as used in section 1161, the phrase “commercial sexual act” is, at the very least, ambiguous.
Where statutory language is ambiguous and susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation “ ‘we look to a variety of extrinsic aids, including the ostensible objects to be achieved, the evils to be remedied, the legislative history, public policy, contemporaneous administrative construction, and the statutory scheme of which the statute is a part. [Citations.]’ . . . [¶] Furthermore, we must select a construction that comports most closely with the apparent intent of the Legislature, with a view to promoting rather than defeating the general purpose of the statute, and avoid an interpretation that would lead to absurd consequences. [Citation.]” (Kim, supra, 136 Cal.App.4th at p. 941.)
The most helpful extrinsic aids are the legislative history of the 2013 amendment of section 1161, and the absurd consequences that would follow from the interpretation adopted by the trial court. The legislative history clearly shows the measure was intended to apply to acts of prostitution that resulted from “being a victim of human trafficking” (
The original version of section 1161 enacted by passage of Proposition 35 provided that “[e]vidence that a victim of human trafficking . . . has engaged
Assemblyman Richard Bloom, the author of the amending measure, Assembly Bill No. 694 (2013-2014 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 694), explained its purpose to the Assembly and Senate Committees on Public Safety and his views were reiterated in committee analyses of the measure made available to all members of the Legislature as follows: “ ‘Language from Proposition 35 excludes evidence that a victim of human trafficking took part in a commercial sexual act, such as prostitution, in prosecutions related to that activity. However, the language as it reads now could reach beyond its intended use and potentially jeopardize other serious prosecutions, such as robbery or murder of the human trafficker, where that evidence may be key in establishing motive. By narrowing this section to apply only to prosecutions for the commercial sexual act, AB 694 makes a simple change that ensures that Proposition 35 still protects victims of human trafficking but allows for this type of evidence to be used in other prosecutions.’ ” (Assem. Com. on Public Safety, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 694 (2013-2014 Reg. Sess.) as introduced Feb. 21, 2013, p. 2 (Analysis).) Assemblyman Bloom thus made clear that (1) prostitution is “a commercial sexual act,” (2) the voters who enacted Proposition 35 intended that section 1161 apply in prosecutions of victims of human trafficking for “prostitution,” and (3) Assembly Bill 694 did not alter that application.13
So did Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey, the proponent of the amendment and, so far as the record shows, the only nonlegislative source of information regarding Assembly Bill 694 received by the legislative committees that analyzed the measure and placed it on consent calendars made available to all state legislators. In identical letters to the chairpersons and members of the Assembly and Senate public safety committees dated, respectively, March 16 and June 3, 2013, and included in the legislative bill analyses, Lacey stated that the original language of subdivision (a) of section 1161 “ ‘creates potential problems for the prosecution if a victim of human trafficking is being prosecuted for a crime other than a commercial sexual act related to human trafficking. For instance, if a defendant was a victim of
Lacey acknowledged that “ ‘[c]learly, in a prosecution of a victim of human trafficking for an act of prostitution that is related to the trafficking, [the initial version of] Evidence Code section 1161[, subdivision ](a), makes any evidence of a commercial sexual act related to that trafficking inadmissible.’ ” (Ibid.) She then explained that the amendment proposed by Assembly Bill 694 “ ‘would clarify’ ” that, as expressed in the official Voter Information Guide regarding Proposition 35, “ ‘the limitation on the admissibility of evidence that a victim of human trafficking engaged in any commercial sexual act, is intended to limit such evidence when being introduced to prosecute that person for a commercial sexual act crime, such as prostitution.’ ” (Analysis, supra, at p. 4, italics added.)
As reflected in the bill analyses, the district attorney also told the chairpersons of the policy committees that “ ‘[p]rior to proposing AB 694, our office met with Chris Kelly, the proponent of the CASE Act, who informed us that the intent of Evidence Code section 1161[, subdivision ](a) was to limit the prosecutions of the sexual act (i.e., prostitution), and that he supports our legislation that clarifies the intent of Proposition 35.’ ” (Id. at pp. 4, 5, italics added.)
In short, as set forth in the bill analyses, the representation to the Legislature of the Los Angeles County District Attorney reiterated that prostitution is a “commercial sexual act.” The Legislature was therefore assured by the author of the bill and by its proponent that the 2013 amendment, which was unopposed, would continue to protect victims of human trafficking by excluding evidence of commercial sexual acts they were coerced by human traffickers to perform when prosecuted by the state for those criminal acts, most specifically prostitution, the criminal act for which victims of human sex trafficking are most commonly prosecuted. (State of Human Trafficking, supra, at pp. 50-57; see Kim, supra, 136 Cal.App.4th at p. 941 [courts may look to legislative history to discern meaning of statutory language].)
It is not entirely clear why legislative attention was never called to the possibility the phrase “commercial sexual act” in section 1161 might be seen as having the same meaning as that ascribed to the phrase “commercial sex act” by
The trial court’s interpretation of section 1161 would not only defeat the general purpose of the CASE Act, but lead to absurd consequences.
Persons are rarely arrested for acts of prostitution “on account of which anything of value is given or received.” (
As indicated, at the present time, almost all persons arrested for prostitution in this state are charged with violating either
“anything of value [be] given or received.” (§ 236.1, subd. (h)(2).)16 Therefore, if the interpretation of section 1161, subdivision (a), urged by the Los Angeles County District Attorney in this case and adopted by the trial court is correct, the CASE Act would provide no protection at all for victims of human trafficking prosecuted for acts of prostitution they were forced by traffickers to perform. Such a ridiculous result cannot, of course, be judicially countenanced.
Proposition 35 allowed that the CASE Act may be amended by the Legislature, but only by means of “a statute in furtherance of its objectives.” (Prop. 35, § 15, italics added.) Section 1161, as amended, is “in furtherance” of the objectives of the CASE Act only if the phrase “commercial sexual act” is construed so as to embrace the conduct punishable by
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed.
Stewart, J., and Miller, J., concurred.
Notes
Vali testified much the same about Michael, who exploited appellant in Los Angeles at the time of the acts described in the petitions in this case. “She’s on the streets, needed a place to stay. He took her to a motel where she was confined. He transported her as well to and from the track. He also coerced her to engage in commercial sex and set prices and also took the money that she earned.”
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department reports that between January 1, 2011, and July 31, 2016, it made 5,541 “prostitution arrests” under
Statistics reported by the Los Angeles City Attorney show that between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2016, officials prosecuted 10,065 cases in which count 1 was violation of
Because the statistics and legislative history we have described and discussed were not a part of the record in this appeal or referred to by the parties in their briefs, we provided these materials to the parties, indicated we considered them matters which may be judicially noticed, and indicated our intention to take such notice. As required by