People v. Arvanites

• Decision Date: 01 June 1971
• Docket Number: Cr. 18816
• Citation: 17 Cal.App.3d 1052,95 Cal.Rptr. 493
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Linda Lucille ARVANITES et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Page 493

95 Cal.Rptr. 493

17 Cal.App.3d 1052

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Linda Lucille ARVANITES et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Cr. 18816.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California.

June 1, 1971.

Rehearing Denied June 11, 1971.

Hearing Denied July 28, 1971.

[17 Cal.App.3d 1055] Ralph M. Segura, Los Angeles, for defendants and appellants.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Howard J. Schwab, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

KAUS, Presiding Justice.

After a jury found defendants guilty of conspiracy to falsely imprison one Adolph T. Brugger (Count I) and of the substantive charge of false imprisonment by violence and menace (Count II--Pen.Code §§ 236, 237). Defendants were placed on probation, subject to certain conditions hereafter discussed. They appeal.

FACTS

The facts are these: The People presented their case through two witnesses, one a police officer who, on November 19, 1969, was working for the University of California at Los Angeles. The other was the victim, Adolph Brugger, the executive director of the Associated Students at that university. The entire incident out of which these charges arose stemmed from the fact that a cafeteria worker, Charles Bargaineer, had been discharged and that defendants, together with other students, wanted Brugger to rehire him.

The account given by Jeffrey, the officer, begins shortly after noon on November 19, 1969, when one Suzi Wong was addressing a group of 'from 65 to 102' people, most of whom were apparently students. Defendants Kay Taus, Coffman and Prickett were in the group. Miss Wong asked the group to go with her to the cafeteria and to Brugger's office. The crowd left with Miss Wong. First there was a march through the cafeteria, then a procession to Brugger's office in Kerckhoff Hall. About 60 students crowded into the office. Among them were all 5 defendants. Several people in the crowd were talking at the same time, using obscenity, calling Brugger a racist and demanding that he rehire Bargaineer right then and there. When Brugger stated that he had an appointment someone said: 'The hell with your appointment. Call your wife. You won't be hoem tonight.' Dean Reeves, who was standing in the doorway to Brugger's office, was shoved away by a female demonstrator. When he asked not to be shoved, defendant Prickett came forward with drawn fists and said: 'If you put your hands on her I will knock your fucking teeth out.' Reeves left. At one point the demonstrators held what appeared to be a caucus. About 28 or 30 of them left, 28 or 29 remained. ¹ All 5 defendants were among those who remained. At that point Jeffrey was identified as a 'plainclothes pig' and he retired to the office of Brugger's secretary. The demonstrators then began to barricade one of the doors to Brugger's office with furniture. Defendants Prickett and Coffman were active in that operation.

There was a roof outside Brugger's office which could be reached through a french window. Defendants Coffman, Kay Taus and Arvanites were seen on the roof. Jeffrey approached Brugger's office by way of the roof and inquired about his health, having been told that Brugger had had a heart attack only a month earlier. Brugger said he was 'Okay.' Kay Taus then again recognized Jeffrey as a police officer and demanded that he get off the roof, threatening to shove him 'through the fucking skylight' if he did not. He complied. Looking into Brugger's office he was able to see something resembling a desk against a door.

The people inside Brugger's office were using his telephone and Jeffrey listened in on an extension. At one point he heard a female voice say: 'This is Kay. We are holding our Mr. Brugger. Why don't you come over?' Eventually, shortly after 8:00 p.m. that night, Jeffrey and other police officers forced their way into Brugger's office and arrested defendants together with 23 other persons.

Brugger's testimony was more detailed than Jeffrey's: He was seated behind his desk when numerous students entered his office at 1:15 p.m. He noted defendants Coffman, Kay Taus, Roger Taus and Prickett among them. Apart from those who were in his own office, there were others in his secretary's office and in the hall. Prickett demanded that Brugger pick up the telephone and 'call the mother-fucking son of a bitch who had fired Mr. Bargaineer and to get him up (here) so that Mr. Bargaineer could get rehired.' Others made similar demands. At one point when Brugger smiled he was told to 'wipe that goddamn smile' off his face. Kay Taus informed him that after the group got through with him he would not have anything to smile about. It was at that point that Brugger first noticed defendant Arvanites who was standing next to Kay Taus. Two members of the group told Brugger that they did not want to talk, they wanted action.

After Dean Reeves had left the room, the door was slammed shut and furniture was started to be moved. Brugger's credenza was pushed over by, among others, defendant Coffman. When Brugger tried to go to his secretary's office to make a telephone call he was physically blocked from leaving the room by Roger Taus who said something like 'that's as far as you are going.' At that point the door to the secretary's office weas not barricaded.

At about 4:00 p.m. defendant Coffman and two others asked Brugger to sign a piece of paper stating that he would rehire Bargaineer without any conditions. ² He refused. Coffman then said, in effect, that they were going to stay until the paper was signed. At about 5:00 p.m. Vice Chancellor Hobson, the chief of the campus police and several other men approached Brugger's office by way of the roof. Brugger moved to join them. A group formed and jostled him back into the room. Through the window Brugger told the vice chancellor that he was still negotiating and that he had an appointment at 7:00 p.m. which he intended to keep. Brugger then told those inside the room that if he were kept from his 7:00 p.m. appointment 'we'd be in an entirely different ball game.' He would then consider himself kept against his will and by force.

Brugger's captors then caucused outside the room, leaving 5 or 6 of their number to guard him. When they returned Miss Wong announced that they had decided to keep Brugger there until he had signed the document with respect to Bargaineer. Up to that point Brugger was still negotiating in good faith and did not consider himself a prisoner. The students then barricaded a second door. Defendant Coffman was active in that effort. Others started to tape windows. Kay Taus was a member of that group. At about 6:55 Brugger again tried to leave the room by way of the roof. He was pushed back physically and was told that he could not leave. Coffman and Kay Taus were among those who prevented his departure. All five defendants were observed by Brugger in the room at one time or another after 7:00 p.m. Some time after 7:00 a member of the Student Council came in from the roof and was heard saying: 'If he wants to leave, he should be able to leave.' He was thrown out. Cries of pain emanated from the roof area. A voice said 'somebody get a doctor. Somebody get an ambulance.' Brugger tried to go onto the roof to see what was happening but was jostled back into the room. He then attempted to leave by way of the door leading to his secretary's office. When he tried to move the bookcase which was barricading it, he was pulled away by three students. Defendant Roger Taus was among them. An attempt to leave by way of the door that led to the hall was prevented by three persons, one of whom was defendant Prickett. Coffman then taped the paper which the students wanted signed to the wall above Brugger's head and said: 'Well, you are just going to stay here until you sign it.' Brugger then heard the voice of Vice Chancellor Hobson who asked him to leave the room. Again Brugger was prevented from doing so. Prickett and Coffman were involved in that effort. Brugger then heard a series of announcements made by means of bull-horns by Hobson and persons who identified themselves as police officers. The meeting in the office was declared to be an illegal assembly and the group was asked to disperse. When these commands were not obeyed the police broke in and Brugger was freed.

The defense was, in the main, legally irrelevant. Principally the defendants explained their political and socio-economic views which led them to do what they did. About the only defense testimony which touched upon the legal merits was evidence designed to minimize the amount of force used to effectuate Brugger's imprisonment and evidence from Prickett to the effect that the original purpose of the group was simply to present petitions to Brugger ³ and that the only reason why the group continued what Prickett called a 'sit-in' was that Brugger seemed to be on the verge of granting the group's demands.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS

Defendants claim that: 1. their convictions on the conspiracy count violate their First Amendment rights; 2. there is no substantial evidence that the false imprisonment was effected by 'violence or menact' (Pen.Code § 237) and therefore, defendants were, at most, guilty of a misdemeanor; 3. the trial court's instructions defining 'violence' were erroneous; 4. with respect to defendants Kay Taus and Arvanitas the record does not even justify a misdemeanor conviction; and 5. certain conditions of probation imposed by the court are improper.

DISCUSSION

I.

The point that their convictions violated defendants' First Amendment rights is based on a complete misreading of the essay ⁴ on conspiracy prosecutions and the First Amendment which forms the lead opinion in Castro v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.App.3d 675, 681--698, 88 Cal.Rptr. 500. There it was said that where persons are engaged in a demonstration, legitimately designed to publicize grievances, and...