Elizabeth G., In re
Citation | 126 Cal.Rptr. 118,53 Cal.App.3d 725 |
Parties | In re Elizabeth G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. James MERCER, as Chief Probation Officer, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Elizabeth G., Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 15234. |
Decision Date | 05 December 1975 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
John Schick, Deputy Public Defender, Stockton, for appellant.
Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., by Susan Rankin Bunting, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, for respondent.
Elizabeth G., a minor, appeals from an order of the Juvenile Court of San Joaquin County finding her to be a ward of the court pursuant to section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, in that she violated section 647, subdivision (b), of the Penal Code ( ).
On the evening of February 12, 1975, Officers Mazzuola and Hughes of the Stockton Police Department, while working the vice detail, received information from an anonymous source that two females were working as prostitutes and were taking appointments over the phone. At about 9:45 p.m. on that evening, Officer Mazzuola called the number furnished by the source.
A female answered the phone and the officer asked for either Theresa or Sherry, and the person responded that 'that was them.' Mazzuola asked the female if they could get together and she replied in the affirmative. Another female then came on the line and wanted to know what he wanted. Officer Mazzuola told the second person he had a friend and wanted to know if they could all get together that evening. This second person also agreed. One of the girls then told the officer they would need a ride and would have to be picked up. Mazzuola asked if he should get a motel room first and the two girls indicated that he should. The officer was also told to pick them up in a short time at the corner of 8th and Ophir.
The officers arrived at the meeting place and shortly thereafter the minor and another girl walked up to the car. One of the girls asked Mazzuola if he was 'Tony' (the name he used on the phone), and he stated that he was. The girls then got into the car and the foursome proceeded to the Regal 8 Motel. Enroute the girls questioned the officers as to whether or not they were policemen, and the officers assured the girls they were not. Mazzuola also asked how much it was going to cost, and the minor replied that they did not want to talk about it until they were in their rooms.
All four went into the same motel room where Officer Mazzuola voiced a preference for the other girl. Officer Hughes and the minor then left and went into the room next door.
Mazzuola told the minor's companion he wanted a 'half-and-half,' and was told that it would cost him $20. He gave her a $20 bill and she started walking toward the bathroom. She told him, however, that she wanted him to undress first so she would know he was not a policeman. Mazzuola then produced his badge and I.D., advised her he was a policeman and that she was under arrest for prostitution. At that point, she ran toward the door in the other room and tried to warn the minor. Officer Mazzuola pulled her from the door and warned her to be quiet.
In the adjacent room, Officer Hughes had his wallet out and was in the process of giving the minor a $20 bill when they heard a commotion and a door slam in the adjoining room. The minor then stated that she had changed her mind and wanted to leave.
Immediately thereafter, Hughes indentified himself as a police officer and advised the minor she was under arrest for prostitution. At the police station she was advised of her constitutional rights. She stated that she had been turning 'tricks' for the past several months and that it had been her intention to turn a trick that evening; that she was trying to earn additional money to help out her family.
The following facts were stipulated to:
'1. The Daily Arrest Register of the Stockton Police Department is a business record within the meaning of Evidence Code section 1271 and it is accurately kept and maintained and thus comes under the Business Record exception to the Hearsay Rule.
'2. The Vice Squad of the Stockton Police Department has no women working in prostitution control. The Vice Squad of the Stockton Police Department has four (4) men working 'vice' wich includes prostitution control with three (3) additional men who, upon occasion, work in prostitution control.
'3. The Vice Squad of the Stockton Police Department has no female operators. All of the operators of the Vice Squad of the Stockton Police Department are male.
On behalf of the defense, it was contended that the Stockton Police Department was engaging in selective enforcement of the law by arresting only females for solicitation of prostitution.
A law clerk for the San Joaquin County Public Defender's Office examined the booking logs for the Stockton Police Department and had compiled a list of arrests for violations of subdivision (b) of section 647 of the Penal Code during 1973, 1974 and 1975 (through March 4). He testified that in 1973, 4.5 percent of the persons arrested for violating section 647, subdivision (b), were male and 95.5 percent were female. In 1974, 1.8 percent were male and 98.2 percent were female. In 1975, 27.3 percent were male and 72.7 percent were female. To the best of his knowledge, the statistics he cited were violations of soliciting or engaging in acts of prostitution.
The minor contends that there is insufficient evidence to sustain a finding that she violated section 647, subdivision (b), of the Penal Code since no money was offered or received by her, and, in fact, no price was ever agreed upon. She argues the solicitation, if any, was made by the officers, and the record shows only 'suspicion,' which is not evidence. (See People v. Redmond (1969) 71 Cal.2d 745, 755, 79 Cal.Rptr. 529, 457 P.2d 321.) There is no merit to this contention.
The standard of proof in juvenile proceedings involving criminal acts is the same as the standard in adult criminal trials. (In re Roderick P. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 801, 809, 103 Cal.Rptr. 425.) These standards are set forth in Redmond, supra:
(71 Cal.2d at p. 755, 79 Cal.Rptr. at p. 534, 457 P.2d at p. 326.)
Our review of the record discloses substantial evidence in support of the trial court's findings. For example, the minor indicated during the ride to the motel that the price would be discussed when they got to their room. While in the room, she stated the price would depend on what Hughes wanted. The minor was responsive to the phone call, which was made pursuant to information received by the officers indicating she was working as a prostitute and taking appointments over the phone. Coupled with the circumstances of the events, the facts that no money actually changed hands is irrelevant to the charge of soliciting. In addition, after having been advised of her constitutional rights, the minor admitted to past acts of prostitution. She also admitted it had been her intention to turn a trick that very night. We hold the evidence to be clearly sufficient to support the court's finding that the minor solicited an act of prostitution.
The minor next contends she was denied uniform operation of the laws and equal protection of the law by the arresting officers and the prosecution in that Penal Code section 647, subdivision (b), was being enforced only as to female suspects and not as to male suspects.
Section 647, subdivision (b) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
'Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor:
'. . .per
This statute on its face is neutral, i.e., it applies to both sexes. The minor argues, however, that the section is not being enforced equally, and that women are therefore the subject of invidious...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Smith
... ... (Murgia, supra, 15 Cal.3d 286, 305, 124 Cal.Rptr. 204, 540 P.2d 44; Hartway, supra, 19 Cal.3d 338, 348, 138 Cal.Rptr. 66, 562 P.2d 1315; Sperl, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d 640, 657, 126 Cal.Rptr. 907; Street, supra, 89 Cal.App.3d 739, 748, 153 Cal.Rptr. 69; see In re Elizabeth G., supra, 53 Cal.App.3d 725, 733, 126 Cal.Rptr. 118; Lyons, supra, 75 Cal.App.3d 829, 844, 142 Cal.Rptr. 449; Battin, supra, 77 Cal.App.3d 635, 666, 143 Cal.Rptr. 731.) People v. Gray (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 256, at page 265, 63 Cal.Rptr. 211, appears to have been the first case to observe the ... ...
-
People v. Battin, Cr. 9051
... ... 204, 540 P.2d 44.) Further, defendant must carry the burden of proof that he has been deliberately singled out in order to overcome the presumption that "(prosecutorial) dut(ies have) been properly, and constitutionally exercised." (In re Elizabeth G., 53 Cal.App.3d 725, 733, 126 Cal.Rptr. 118, 122.) With these rules in mind, we examine defendant's contentions and the evidence adduced at the hearing on the motion to dismiss the indictment ... [77 Cal.App.3d 667] Defendant attempted to portray himself as the innocent ... ...
-
People v. M.V. (In re M.V.)
... ... (See In re Cheri T. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1403, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 397 [upholding 602 petition alleging solicitation under subdivision (b) of section 647 against sufficiency of evidence challenge]; In re Elizabeth G ... (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 725, 730, 126 Cal.Rptr. 118 [violation of subdivision (b) of section 647 as set forth in 602 petition upheld against selective enforcement and sufficiency of evidence challenges].) Further, as described in Tobias, notions of legal capacity to consent applied when a minor ... ...
-
People v. Milano, Cr. 33206
... ... (See People v. Superior Court (Hartway) (1977) 19 Cal.3d 338, 348, 138 Cal.Rptr. 66, 562 P.2d 1315; People v. Garner (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 214, 139 Cal.Rptr. 838; In re Elizabeth G. (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 725, 126 Cal.Rptr. 118.) ... Equal Protection ... Appellants argue that the statute in question violates their right to equal protection, in that the news media are expressly exempted therefrom ... In reviewing a legislative ... ...