Sacramento Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

The United States Supreme Court issued a ruling today that rejects a California law that attempted to ban the sale of violent video games to minors. The Court's 7-2 decision in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association - authored by Justice Antonin Scalia - says that video games have the same First Amendment freedom of speech protection that other forms of communication have.

The case comes from a law passed in 2005 by the California legislature - and signed by then-Governor Schwarzenegger - which never went into effect because of lawsuits. The law prohibited the rental or sale of violent video games to people under the age of 18. Violent games were defined as those that portrayed "killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being" if those images were shown in a manner considered "deviant" or "patently offensive" to the community's standards of what is appropriate for minors.

The Court's majority stated that freedom of speech protection covers video games just as it does movies, plays, and books. Justice Scalia noted that government regulation has never extended to depictions of violence.

Groups that had sought the ban argued that studies have shown a link between violent video games and aggressive behavior in some of the children who played them. The Court, however, was not persuaded by this reasoning, saying the research was inconclusive.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, stating that First Amendment protections do not include a minor's right to access speech. Justice Stephen Breyer dissented as well, saying he did see sufficient evidence of a link between violent video games and aggressive behavior by children who use them.

A Yolo County judge has issued a final decision in a case concerning the activities of the Broderick Boys gang in West Sacramento. Superior Court Judge Kathleen White's ruling affirms her previous decision that categorizes the Broderick Boys as a public nuisance and imposes an injunction that limits their activities within a "safety zone" in West Sacramento.

The injunction, which will remain in effect for the next seven years, prohibits these activities with the "safety zone," the area bordered by State Route 275, Harbor Boulevard, the Sacramento River, and the Capital City Freeway:

• Violating a 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew
• Breaking any law
• Associating with other gang members in public
• Producing graffiti or possessing items used to produce graffiti
• Possessing drugs or alcohol
• Possessing weapons
• Intimidating witnesses
• Trespassing on private property

Today's decision is the culmination of an over five-year effort by the Yolo County District Attorney's Office to impose restrictions on gang activities in West Sacramento. The Broderick Boys, the D.A.'s office asserts, is a public nuisance because of its criminal actions. Gang members and their lawyers counter that the injunction's restrictions constitut an infringement of their civil liberties.

The California Supreme Court has ruled that juveniles who cause a fire by setting off firecrackers can be charged with arson.

The ruling concerns an incident that took place in July 2008 in the hills above Pasadena, near a residential neighborhood. Two 17-year old boys lit a firecracker and threw it into the brush, causing a fire that burned five acres. They were charged with crimes of arson on forest land and recklessly causing a fire. A juvenile court found that the actions of the two juveniles met the standard for arson. The juveniles were declared wards of the state and given home probation.

Both juveniles appealed the decision, with each appeal being heard by a separate California appellate court. The decision against one of the boys was set aside, with the lesser offense of recklessly causing a fire substituted for the arson charge. The decision against the other boy, though, was affirmed. The California Supreme Court took up the cases to resolve the different decisions reached by the appellate courts.

The juveniles argued that because they did not intend to cause a brushfire, they did not act with malice, something required by arson statutes. The court disagreed.

According to the court, the issue is not whether the juveniles intended to start a fire on the hillside. Instead, the issue is whether they were aware that "their intentional acts created a fire hazard." Interestingly, the court said that because the boys attempted to throw the cherry bomb onto a concrete area or a green portion of the hillside nearby, they demonstrated an understanding that their actions had the potential to start a fire. The court also cited evidence that instead of being surprised that a fire started, they yelled and laughed and displayed other signs of "having a good time" just after the fire started.

Thus, the court said, instead of being accidental, the incident was willful and malicious.

This case has important implications for juveniles in the Sacramento region, particularly those in the foothills and farmland, who light a firecracker or even a Fourth of July firework, and cause a fire. According to this ruling, law enforcement would be justified in bringing arson charges.

The California Supreme Court issued a ruling yesterday that attempts to clarify state law regarding pandering. Specifically, it tried to determine what actions categorize someone as a pimp.

As we noted in our March 4 blog post, the case of People v. Zambia concerns Jomo Zambia who in 2007 pulled his car up to an undercover Los Angeles police officer who was posing as a prostitute as part of a sting operation. Zambia told the officer that he was a pimp, showed her a business card, and said he would "take care of her" if she got in his vehicle. Zambia was arrested for pandering and subsequently convicted in superior court. A California appellate court upheld his conviction.

California Penal Code section 266(i)(a)(2) states that a person is guilty of pandering if that person "[b]y promises, threats, violence, or by any device or scheme, causes, induces, persuades, or encourages another person to become a prostitute."

The Supreme Court agreed with the trial and appellate court decisions and ruled that Zambia's actions constituted pandering. Zambia argued that "to become a prostitute" does not pertain when someone is already a prostitute or is posing as a prostitute. The court did not find this persuasive. It instead agreed with the view that "to become a prostitute" pertains to engaging in prostitution in the future, not with whether someone is already a prostitute or is only posing as one.