People v. Burt

• Decision Date: 21 October 1955
• Docket Number: Cr. 5715
• Citation: 45 Cal.2d 311,288 P.2d 503,51 A.L.R.2d 948
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 51 A.L.R.2d 948 The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. John James BURT, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 503

288 P.2d 503

45 Cal.2d 311, 51 A.L.R.2d 948

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. John James BURT, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 5715.

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

Oct. 21, 1955.

Jefferson & Jefferson, Martha Malone Jefferson and Bernard S. Jefferson, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and William E. James, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

TRAYNOR, Justice.

Defendant was charged by information with violating section 653f of the Penal Code in that he 'solicit(ed the prosecutrix) to commit and join in the commission of the crime of Extortion.' After a trial by the court sitting without a jury, defendant was found guilty. His motion for a new trial was denied, but the proceedings were suspended and he was placed on probation. He appeals from the order granting probation, Pen.Code, § 1237, and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The evidence presented at the trial established that defendant solicited the prosecutrix in Los Angeles to get acquainted with men at hotels in the Los Angeles area and to persuade them to accompany her to Tijuana, Mexico, to engage in sexual intercourse, and to join with defendant's associate in committing acts in Mexico that would constitute extortion as defined in section 518 of the Penal Code. ¹ The prosecutrix reported the solicitations to the police and the scheme was never carried out.

The basic question raised on appeal is whether it is a punishable offense in California to solicit a person to commit or join in the commission outside of California of any of the crimes mentioned in section 653f of the Penal Code. ² Defendant contends that to punish him for soliciting in this state the performance of acts outside this state that would amount to 'extortion,' as that word is defined in section 518 of the Penal Code, is to punish him for acts to be done outside this state and thus without the jurisdiction of the California courts.

In support of this contention defendant invokes People v. Buffum, 40 Cal.2d 709, 256 P.2d 317. In that case the court stated: 'The object of defendants' agreement, as alleged in the indictment, was 'to violate section 274, Penal Code of the State of California.' No other unlawful purpose was stated, and defendants, of course, cannot be punished for conspiracy unless the doing of the things agreed upon would amount to a violation of section 274. The statute makes no reference to the place of performance of an abortion, and we must assume that the Legislature did not intend to regulate conduct taking place outside the borders of the state. (Citations.) Similarly, section 182 of the Penal Code, standing alone, should not be read as applying to a conspiracy to commit a crime in another jurisdiction.' 40 Cal.2d 709, 715, 256 P.2d 317, 319. In the present case, however, we are not concerned with a statute prohibiting a conspiracy 'to commit any crime', however petty, or to commit the numerous other acts listed in section 182. Two or more persons may conspire to commit an act in another state that would not be a crime there but would be a crime if committed in this state, or that would not be a crime here but would be a crime in the other state. Similar conflicts in the law of this state and of other states would also arise in applying the other four subdivisions of section 182 when the acts are to be performed in another state. Section 653f, however, prohibits the solicitation of only twelve of the most serious crimes, all of which are felonies under the law of this state and at common law and are crimes under the law of all civilized nations. Since the Legislature is not ordinarily concerned with regulating conduct in other jurisdictions, People v. Buffum, supra, 40 Cal.2d 709, 716, 256 P.2d 317, and since section 182 suggests no answer to the many difficult questions that would otherwise arise from the conflict in California law and the law of other states, that section may reasonably be interpreted as limited to conspiracies to commit crimes in this state. It does not follow, however, that when the Legislature has singled out the solicitation of the most serious of crimes, it likewise intended to punish their solicitation only when they were to be committed in this state. Legislative concern with the proscribed soliciting is demonstrated not only by the gravity of the crimes specified but by the fact that the crime, unlike conspiracy, does not require the commission of any overt act. It is complete when the solicitation is made, and it is immaterial that the object of the solicitation is never consummated, or that no steps are taken toward its consummation. People v. Haley, 102 Cal.App.2d 159, 165, 227 P.2d 48; People v. Gray, 52 Cal.App.2d 620, 653, 127 P.2d 72; 1 Burdick, The Law of Crime (1946), §§ 104-106. Section 653f is concerned not only with the prevention of the harm that would result should the inducements prove successful, but with protecting inhabitants of this state from being exposed to inducements to commit or join in the commission of the crimes specified, cf. People v. Chase, 117 Cal.App.Supp. 775, 780, 1 P.2d 60, and the evils it seeks to prevent are present whether the object of the solicitation is to be accomplished within or without this state. Thus, in the present case defendant used the prospects of large monetary rewards to attempt to induce the prosecutrix to commit acts of prostitution and extortion, with residents of this state as intended victims. Such solicitation is inimical to the public welfare and to the safety and morals of the inhabitants of this state, regardless of where the solicited acts are to be performed, and a construction of section 653f that limits its operation to solicitation of acts that are to be consummated within this state would defeat, rather than effect, the object of that statute. See Pen.Code, § 4.

Defendant contends, however, that since he was charged with soliciting 'the crime of Extortion' he could not properly be convicted unless it was proved that the acts solicited would constitute the crime of extortion at the place where they were to be performed and that the prosecution therefore failed to sustain its burden of proof since it offered no evidence to prove that the acts solicited would constitute the crime of extortion under the laws of Mexico. Since it is...