People v. Stoddard
| Decision Date | 04 May 1964 |
| Citation | 227 Cal.App.2d 40,38 Cal.Rptr. 407 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Paul C. STODDARD, Defendant and Appellant. Crim. 4445. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Kilday, Nemer & Farbstein, San Mateo, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen. of the State of Cal., Albert W. Harris, Jr., Robert R. Granucci, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for respondent.
A sexual psychopath is defined as one affected with specified mental conditions 'in a form predisposing to the commission of sexual offenses, and in a degree constituting him a menace to the health or safety of others' (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 5500). 1 Our question is whether the threat of psychological trauma to others, without likelihood of physical injury, constitutes such a menace.
Defendant pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of indecent exposure (Pen.Code, § 314), and was certified to the Superior Court for determination of sexual psychopathy. Four psychiatrists filed written reports and testified orally. All agreed that defendant is affected with a mental disorder which predisposes to the commission of such offenses, in that at times he has an irresistible urge to expose his sex organ to young girls, but that there is no likelihood of physical contact with them. Three felt that this predisposition does not constitute him a menace within the statutory definition. The fourth disagreed. The court found that there is sufficient cause to believe that he is a sexual psychopath, and ordered him temporarily committed to Atascadero State Hospital for a period not to exceed 90 days for observation and diagnosis. Defendant appeals. Appealability of the order is not argued.
Defendant contends that only the threat of physical injury can constitute one a 'menace to the health or safety of others', and that since there is no likelihood of physical contact in repetition of his exhibitionism, he cannot be deemed a sexual psychopath. He cites dictionary definitions of 'menace' as a show of intent 'to inflict an evil or injury upon another' (Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd ed; Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary [1960]). But these do not aid him, for an 'evil' may be 'something that is injurious to moral or physical happiness or welfare' (Webster's Third New International Dictionary). The same work, in defining 'injury' quotes the passage: 'mental or emotional upset is just...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Zavala-Sustaita
...S.W.3d 294, 297 (Tex. App. 1999, pet. ref'd 2000) ("The obvious intent of indecency laws is to protect children."); California v. Stoddard, 227 Cal. App. 2d 40, 41-42 (1964) (upholding a commitment order against a person who was predisposed to commit indecent exposure to girls with "no like......
-
State v. Eastman
... ... A "threat" is a declaration of an intention to injure another by the commission of an unlawful act. People v. Hines, 780 P.2d 556 (Colo.1989); State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 237 N.W.2d 609 (1975); State v. Gunzelman, 210 Kan. 481, 502 P.2d 705 ... Lizotte, 256 A.2d 439 (Me.1969); State v. Cruitt, 200 Kan. 372, 436 P.2d 870 (1968); People v. Stoddard, 227 Cal.App.2d 40, 38 Cal.Rptr. 407 (1964); Clifford v. Great Falls Gas Co., 68 Mont. 300, 216 P. 1114 (1923) ... Our review of ... ...
-
People v. Kirk
...supra (stroking the hair of young girls without ever using force). Appellant's next contention, that the case of People v. Stoddard, 227 Cal.App.2d 40, 38 Cal.Rptr. 407, defines the limits of 'dangerousness' within the contemplation of section 6300 is without merit. Nor can we agree with hi......
-
U.S. v. Padillo-Reyes
...victim, regardless of whether any physical injury was incurred. See Zavala-Sustaita, 214 F.3d at 605 (citing People v. Stoddard, 227 Cal.App.2d 40, 38 Cal.Rptr. 407, 408 (1964) for proposition that even with no likelihood of physical contact, threat of psychological trauma from sexual abuse......