People v. Imler
Decision Date | 22 September 1992 |
Docket Number | No. B062302,B062302 |
Citation | 9 Cal.App.4th 1178,11 Cal.Rptr.2d 915 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Steven IMLER, Defendant and Appellant. |
Daniel E. Lungren, Atty. Gen., George Williamson, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Carol Wendelin Pollack, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert F. Katz, Supervising Deputy Atty. Gen., David A. Warshaw, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
Here we hold that one can commit the crime of attempted child molestation by speaking to the victim over the telephone.
Defendant Steven Imler pled guilty to numerous counts of making threats over the telephone to commit crimes that would result in death or great bodily injury to another. (Pen.Code, § 422.) His appeal concerns only one count concerning his conviction of attempting to commit a lewd act upon a child. (Pen.Code, §§ 664/288, subd. (a).) He contends the evidence is insufficient to establish the crime of attempt.
We disagree and affirm the conviction.
Imler telephoned numerous Ventura County residences which were listed in the telephone book under the names of both spouses. Upon reaching the wife or child, he stated that he was holding the husband or father at gunpoint. For those persons he called who did not hang up, he ordered them to remove their clothing and masturbate. He threatened some of the women that "his men" or "his boys" were watching the house and would rape or kill her or her children if she did not comply. Following an investigation, Imler admitted placing the calls and said he was venting stress.
He pled guilty to nine counts of making threats over the telephone. He went to trial on a count which charged him with attempted lewd conduct on a child under the age of fourteen years. Imler waived a jury trial and submitted that count upon the police report, a tape recording of a telephone call to a different victim, a memorandum and testimony from a district attorney's investigator, and trial briefs submitted by the parties.
One morning at 7:45 a.m., 12-year-old Jason J. answered the telephone. The caller was Imler. In response to Imler's questions, Jason J. replied that his mother was away and his father was not home. Imler replied that "that's because I have him hostage." Imler demanded $5,000 by the next day, if Jason J. wanted to see his father again. Imler asked Jason what he was wearing, then ordered him to disrobe and touch his penis. Jason J. did not do so, although Imler repeatedly told him to touch himself. Jason J. told Imler he had complied then Imler hung up.
The district attorney's investigator testified that Jason J.'s voice sounded like a twelve-year-old boy. Her memorandum indicated that Jason J.'s mother believed he might in fact have complied with Imler's orders.
Police were able to obtain a tape-recorded telephone call placed by Imler to Susan K. on November 20, 1990. This tape recording was admitted into evidence on the issue of intent. In the call, Imler ordered the woman, who was pleading to be allowed to speak with "Pete," to remove her clothing and masturbate using a curling iron. Imler told her to provide him with details about her sex life, demanded that she "talk dirty" to him and persisted in ordering her to describe to him what she was doing with the curling iron.
Imler's lewd conduct may be inferred from the circumstances of the offense as well as from the evidence in the tape recording. (In re Paul C. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 43, 54, 270 Cal.Rptr. 369.) The intent to commit a violation of Penal Code section 288 is "the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust or passions or sexual desires" of the perpetrator or of the victim. (Ibid.)
That Imler committed his acts over the telephone, and was not present to see Jason J. does not compel a contrary result. In People v. Ross (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1548, 253 Cal.Rptr. 178, defendant left threatening notes in the doors of victims' cars. The notes stated that defendant was watching the victims and would shoot them or their children if they did not comply with the instructions in the notes. The defendant was in fact not present, and the victims did not comply with his orders.
We affirmed the defendant's conviction of attempted false imprisonment. We held that (People v. Ross, supra, 205 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1554-1555, 253 Cal.Rptr. 178.) Just as defendant's physical presence was unnecessary to commit the crime of attempted false imprisonment in Ross, so too here Imler's physical presence was unnecessary to commit the crime of attempted child molestation.
Imler's acts went beyond...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Von Villas
...consisted of a "live" witness and stipulations to the preliminary hearing and suppression hearing transcripts]; People v. Imler (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1178, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 915 [By stipulation, trial consisted of a police report, tape recording, a memorandum, trial briefs, and testimony of one......
-
Shaw v. Allison
...age of 14, (2) with the specific intent of arousing or gratifying the sexual desires of the defendant or the child. (People v. Imler (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1181- 1182.) A.B. testified that, while alone in a bedroom with Shaw, Shaw pushed her onto the bed so that her legs were separated ......
-
People v. Post
...47 Cal.Rptr.2d 769 [attempted injury upon a cohabitant in violation of §§ 273 .5, subd. (a) and 664]; People v. Imler (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1182, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 91*5 [attempted child molestation]; People v. Meyer (1985) 169 Cal. App.3d 496, 501-506, 215 Cal.Rptr. 352 [attempted sale of......
-
Sam v. McDowell
...(1) touched a child under the age of fourteen (2) with the specific intent to arouse either himself or the child. People v. Imler, 9 Cal. App. 4th 1178, 1181-1182 (1992). A violation of § 288.7(a) requires that the defendant (1) engage in sexual intercourse or sodomy (2) with a child who is......