People v. Campos, Cr. 38674

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtASHBY; STEPHENS, Acting P.J., and HASTINGS
Citation131 Cal.App.3d 894,182 Cal.Rptr. 698
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Eleanor Jane CAMPOS, Defendant and Appellant.
Docket NumberCr. 38674
Decision Date19 May 1982

Page 698

182 Cal.Rptr. 698
131 Cal.App.3d 894
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Eleanor Jane CAMPOS, Defendant and Appellant.
Cr. 38674.
Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California.
May 19, 1982.
Hearing Denied Aug. 4, 1982.

Page 699

[131 Cal.App.3d 896] Quin Denvir, State Public Defender, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and Jay Ruskin, Deputy State Public Defender, for defendant and appellant.

[131 Cal.App.3d 897] George Deukmejian, Atty. Gen., Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., S. Clark Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert F. Katz and Frederick Grab, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

ASHBY, Associate Justice.

By jury trial appellant was convicted of kidnaping (Pen.Code, § 207) and child stealing (Pen.Code, § 278). She was sentenced to state prison.

In Los Angeles, on October 31, 1978, appellant took an 11-month-old-boy, Alex Thatcher, from the custody of his mother, Janet Thatcher, and boarded a bus to Mexico. The mother never saw the child again. Appellant told the authorities that she left the baby with a woman in Tijuana. Appellant also told the authorities that she did not like Janet Thatcher and was angry with her and that appellant was resentful over the fact that appellant's own child had been taken away from her three years earlier.

Appellant and Janet Thatcher had known each other one and a half years. On the evening of October 31, 1978, Janet saw appellant outside Janet's hotel. Appellant offered to take Alex to the playground and to buy Pampers and milk. Janet told appellant she had no money for Pampers and milk. Appellant told her she knew someone at the Greyhound bus station who would give her money. Janet said that she would go too. Appellant was reluctant for Janet to come along, but Janet refused to allow appellant to take the baby alone. Appellant and Janet went up to Janet's hotel room for Janet to dress and clean the baby. Janet went into the bathroom to get a washrag, and when she came out appellant and the baby had disappeared.

Appellant presented no defense at trial. Part of the prosecution case included appellant's inconsistent statements to the authorities while in custody in Monterey County in January 1980. Appellant first stated that she had left the baby with Janet Thatcher's boyfriend. She then stated "that the baby had been given to her by its mother so that she could take it to get something to eat, and that subsequently when she returned to the location of the hotel where she had received the baby that the mother wasn't there. She couldn't find any of the mother's [131 Cal.App.3d 898] friends. She went looking for the mother, and when she couldn't find her at about 1:00 or 1:12 o'clock in the morning, she got on a bus and took the baby to Mexico. That subsequently she tried to reenter the United States with the baby, and because she didn't have the papers for the baby, the Immigration authorities would not let the baby back in. And she then therefore took the baby to the address of a woman in Tijuana named Carmen and left the baby with her, and that was the last time she saw the baby. [p] .... [p] [S]he didn't like Janet Thatcher. That she thought she was dirty, and she was angry with her. [p] .... [p] ... She ... was angry ... because [her own child had been taken away from her] about three years earlier, and that she resented this."

Appellant's main contention is that her conviction of kidnaping 1 must be reversed because her conduct can only be prosecuted as child stealing. 2 Appellant relies primarily upon People v. Oliver, 55 Cal.2d 761, 12

Page 700

Cal.Rptr. 865, 361 P.2d 593, where the court held that if the victim is, by reason of immaturity or mental condition, unable to give legal consent to the asportation, there is no kidnaping if the taking was done for a good or innocent purpose, such as forcibly carrying a child away from the edge of a precipice to a place of greater safety. (Id., at p. 765, 12 Cal.Rptr. 865, 361 P.2d 593.) The asportation is kidnaping, however, "if the taking and carrying away is done for an illegal purpose or with an illegal intent." (Id., at p. 768, 12 Cal.Rptr. 865, 361 P.2d 593.) Here the trial court instructed the jury, in the language of CALJIC No. 9.27, which is based on Oliver, that appellant was guilty of kidnaping only if the act of moving the child was done for the purpose of "concealing the child." Appellant argues that if her intent to conceal the child, an element of the charge of violating Penal Code section 278, is the same intent which renders...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 practice notes
  • People v. Escobar, No. B079910
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 19, 1996
    ...there had been flight. The instruction assumes neither the guilt of the accused not that flight occurred." (People v. Campos (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 894, 900, 182 Cal.Rptr. 698; see People v. Pensinger (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1210, 1243-1245, 278 Cal.Rptr. 640, 805 P.2d Complaints about the calculat......
  • Flores v. Stainer, 1:11-CV-00190 BAM HC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • July 31, 2012
    ...28 Cal.4th 346, 364-365.) Moreover, the instruction assumes neither the guilt nor the flight of the defendant. (People v. Campos (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 894, 900; People v. Escobar (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 999, 1029, overruled on other grounds in People v. Mendoza (2000) 23 Cal.4th 896, 911, 914......
  • Carrillo v. McDonald, Case No.: 1:12-cv-01203-JLT
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • April 15, 2015
    ...Cal.App.3d 1471, 1477.) CALCRIM No. 372 assumes neither the guilt of the defendant nor that flight occurred. (People v. Campos (1982) 131 Cal. App.3d 894, 900.) The Third District Court of Appeal recently upheld the constitutionality of CALCRIM No. 372. (People v. Paysinger (2009) 174 Cal.A......
  • People v. Cobb, Cr. 5777
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 28, 1983
    ...of a consciousness of guilt. (People v. Cannady (1972) 8 Cal.3d 379, 391-392, 105 Cal.Rptr. 129, 503 P.2d 585; People v. Campos (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 894, 900, 182 Cal.Rptr. Finally, appellant contends that the imposition of the upper base term was improper. As noted by the trial court, app......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 cases
  • People v. Escobar, No. B079910
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 19, 1996
    ...there had been flight. The instruction assumes neither the guilt of the accused not that flight occurred." (People v. Campos (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 894, 900, 182 Cal.Rptr. 698; see People v. Pensinger (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1210, 1243-1245, 278 Cal.Rptr. 640, 805 P.2d Complaints about the calculat......
  • Flores v. Stainer, 1:11-CV-00190 BAM HC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • July 31, 2012
    ...28 Cal.4th 346, 364-365.) Moreover, the instruction assumes neither the guilt nor the flight of the defendant. (People v. Campos (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 894, 900; People v. Escobar (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 999, 1029, overruled on other grounds in People v. Mendoza (2000) 23 Cal.4th 896, 911, 914......
  • Carrillo v. McDonald, Case No.: 1:12-cv-01203-JLT
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • April 15, 2015
    ...Cal.App.3d 1471, 1477.) CALCRIM No. 372 assumes neither the guilt of the defendant nor that flight occurred. (People v. Campos (1982) 131 Cal. App.3d 894, 900.) The Third District Court of Appeal recently upheld the constitutionality of CALCRIM No. 372. (People v. Paysinger (2009) 174 Cal.A......
  • People v. Cobb, Cr. 5777
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 28, 1983
    ...of a consciousness of guilt. (People v. Cannady (1972) 8 Cal.3d 379, 391-392, 105 Cal.Rptr. 129, 503 P.2d 585; People v. Campos (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 894, 900, 182 Cal.Rptr. Finally, appellant contends that the imposition of the upper base term was improper. As noted by the trial court, app......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT