People v. Garelick
Decision Date | 08 April 2008 |
Docket Number | No. H030976.,H030976. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Brian GARELICK, Defendant and Appellant. |
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Stan Helfman, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Carl A. Gonser, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Brian Garelick was charged by information with an attempted lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14 (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 288, subd. (a)),1 attempted distribution or exhibition of harmful matter to a minor (§§ 664, 288.2, subd. (b)), and misdemeanor possession of child pornography (§ 311.11, subd. (a)). After a jury trial, Garelick was found guilty on all counts. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence, placed Garelick on three years probation and ordered him to serve 365 days in county jail on the charge of attempted lewd or lascivious act, a consecutive 101 days on the charge of attempted distribution or exhibition of harmful matter, and a concurrent sentence of six months in county jail on the charge of misdemeanor possession of child pornography, with credit for time served.
On appeal, Garelick contends that the trial court committed instructional error and challenges the constitutionality of section 288.2, subdivision (b) (hereafter section 288.2(b)). We reject these arguments and shall affirm..
1. Factual and Procedural Background.
On May 13, 2005, Milpitas Police Sergeant Daryl Sequeria was posing as a 13-year-old girl named Suzzi in an Internet chat room, when he was contacted by Garelick. Garelick sent "Suzzi" an instant message, using the screen name "punkbudy." After Garelick told "Suzzi" that he was a minor, "Suzzi" responded that she was not interested in chatting with him, "because he was basically too young."2 Garelick responded that he had an older brother and asked if "Suzzi" would be interested in "talking" to the older brother. When "Suzzi" replied to the effect of "Sure, whatever," Garelick signed out as "punkbudy," signed in again as "TeKnEEk408," and contacted "Suzzi," claiming to be the older brother of "punkbudy."
Garelick informed "Suzzi" that he was 19 years old. The online conversation began to have sexual overtones and Garelick asked "Suzzi" about her past sexual experiences with men. Garelick also admitted that he was, in fact, "punkbudy." Because Garelick had previously been posing as a juvenile online, trying to talk to what he thought was a 13-year-old girl, Sergeant Sequeria prioritized the case and, as "Suzzi," offered to meet with Garelick at a local park. She asked that Garelick bring a specific brand of condoms with him, as well as a specific flavor and brand of chewing gum.
Sergeant Sequeria and other officers set up surveillance at the park. When Garelick arrived at the park, he got out of his car and jogged around, whistling and saying, "Pssst." Officers then approached him and placed him under arrest. In his right front pants pocket, Garelick had a package of the same brand of condoms "Suzzi" had asked him to bring to the park. In Garelick's car, police found a pack of gum-the same flavor and brand that "Suzzi" had asked him to bring-along with handwritten directions to the park.
Garelick consented to police searching his computer, which was retrieved from his house. Upon searching the hard drive, police discovered four images which were identical to images already present on law enforcement databases and identified as suspected child pornography.3 These four images were admitted into evidence at trial as direct evidence to support the possession of child pornography charge.
In addition, police found a number of other "questionable" images that were indicative of child pornography in several different locations on the computer's hard drive. At trial, the People offered, pursuant to Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b) (hereafter Evidence Code section 1101(b)), 131 of these other images found on Garelick's computer.4 Garelick objected on the grounds that it was possible that these images could have been cached on his computer without him ever viewing them or even knowing they were there.
The trial court eventually admitted 118 of the 131 images taken from Garelick's computer.5 Upon the admission of this evidence, however, the trial court advised the jurors that these 118 images had been admitted for a limited purpose and that they would be instructed on how they should receive and evaluate that evidence at the close of the trial.
At the close of trial, the jury was instructed, pursuant to CALCRIM No. 375, that
Before this instruction was given, Garelick's counsel argued that it should be modified to require the jury to make a preliminary finding of fact as to whether or not the "alleged other behavior was committed with the required specific intent or mental state" before it could consider the evidence in question. The trial court refused the proposed modification.
The trial court also gave the following modified CALCRIM No. 220 instruction:
Garelick objected to CALCRIM No. 220 as given and requested that the court instruct the jury that the reasonable doubt standard must apply to every fact and element necessary to prove the crime. Garelick also requested that the trial court give guidance to the jury as to the meaning of the phrase "abiding conviction," and suggested that the trial court instruct the jury that "[a]n abiding conviction based upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest level of certainty recognized in the law." Again, the trial court rejected defense counsel's suggested modifications.
II. DISCUSSION.
On appeal, Garelick renews his argument that the trial court should have instructed the jury that, before it could consider the 118 images found on his computer as evidence of intent, motive, preparation or plan under Evidence Code section 1101(b), it should make a preliminary finding of fact that he possessed or controlled the images with the "required specific intent or mental state" to violate section 311.11.
Subject to the trial court's discretion under Evidence Code section 352, evidence of a defendant's uncharged acts may be admitted into evidence under Evidence Code section 1101(b) when relevant to prove some fact, such as motive, intent, preparation, or plan, other than his disposition to commit such an act. Such evidence of other uncharged crimes may be introduced once its proponent establishes, by a preponderance of evidence, both the fact of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Winkler
...determinations between other crimes evidence under Evid. Code, §§ 1101, subdivision (b) & 1108 ]; People v. Garelick (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1115, 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 815 ( Garelick ) ["the truth of the prior uncharged act and defendant's connection to it are preliminary factual issues whic......
-
People v. Cottone
...(a)(1), such as the fact that the conduct occurred and the defendant's connection to it. (See, e.g., People v. Garelick (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1115, 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 815;People v. Simon (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 125, 129–131, 228 Cal.Rptr. 855( Simon ); accord, Huddleston v. United States (......
-
People v. Andrade
...Cal.Rptr.3d 694 ; People v. Hernández Ríos (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1156–1157, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 591 ; .g., People v. Garelick (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1117–1119, 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 815 ; People v. Campos (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1237–1238, 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 904 ; People v. Guerrero (2007......
-
People v. Powell
...288.2 is, on its face, constitutional under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. ( People v. Garelick (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1119–1120, 1122–1124, 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 815.) Our conclusion applies equally to subdivision (a) of section 288.2, which incorporates the same “ha......
-
Table of Cases null
...v. Gardeley, 14 Cal. 4th 605, 59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 356, 927 P.2d 713 (1996)—Ch. 2, §11.1.3(1)(a); §11.2.2(1)(b)[1] People v. Garelick, 161 Cal. App. 4th 1107, 74 Cal. Rptr. 3d 815 (6th Dist. 2008)—Ch. 4-A, §4.1.3 People v. Garrido, 127 Cal. App. 4th 359, 25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 494 (4th Dist. 2005)—Ch......
-
Chapter 4 - §4. Character evidence of other acts offered for nonpropensity purposes
...the person committed the other act by a preponderance of the evidence. Leon, 61 Cal.4th at 597; People v. Garelick (6th Dist.2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1115. 4. Restrictions on admission of other offense. The other act or offense can be admitted only if it has been scrutinized carefully be......