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.

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.

A proposed ruling by Yolo County judge Kathleen White would restrict the actions of West Sacramento gang members. Specifically, the injunction - due to become final in the next few weeks - would place limits on members of the Broderick Boys gang associating in public, as well as institute a curfew from 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM.

This marks the latest stage of an over six year struggle between Yolo County law enforcement, residents of West Sacramento, and civil rights attorneys representing gang members. The district attorney's office and police argue that the actions of the Broderick Boys constitute a public nuisance that requires the injunction to protect West Sacramento residents. The gang members and their attorneys view it as a violation of their civil rights.

Attorneys representing the Broderick Boys vow to appeal the decision when it is issued in its final form.

Some San Diego area residents are advocating tougher penalties for juveniles charged with DUI.

Taya Chase - who was hit by a 17-year-old drunk driver on September 20, 2009 - and Erin Limonchi - whose mother was killed by the same driver later that morning - are calling on state lawmakers to change California law so that underaged drunk drivers will be tried as adults rather than juveniles.

Under current law, someone found guilty of DUI in a juvenile court could face time in a juvenile detention facility or other penalties. For the purposes of the criminal courts, the juvenile delinquency adjudication does not become part of an adult criminal record. For the purposes of DMV, the DUI does count against a person's driving record.

Someone found guilty of DUI in adult court, however, would face substantial fines, jail time, and restrictions of driving privileges. The conviction would also become part of the person's criminal record.

There is no indication yet that the legislature will take up this proposal.

People who have a "juvenile delinquency adjudication" - commonly referred to as a juvenile record - may petition the court to have that record sealed through the provisions of California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 781. As with expungement for adults, sealing of juvenile records is important for people who violated the law in the past but have since that time maintained a clean record and been contributing members of society.

It's important to understand the difference between juvenile and adult courts. Adult criminal courts in California deal with people 18 years of age and older accused of violating state and local laws. Adults found guilty of misdemeanors or felonies have a criminal record. It is possible at a later date to have this record expunged, whereby the conviction is replaced by a dismissal if specific requirements are met and the court believes that the person has learned from his/her experience. (See all our posts on expungement.)

Juvenile courts deal with minors, people 17 years of age and younger. A person found guilty in juvenile court has a juvenile delinquency adjudication rather than a criminal conviction. The idea is that since young people are not always appreciative of their responsibilities as citizens and understanding of the consequences of their actions, they should not have the stigma of a criminal conviction. Nonetheless, juvenile violations can still hinder people's ability to obtain employment or apply for college, even though they can legally answer no if asked if they have a criminal record. Thus the importance of having juvenile records sealed.

Having juvenile records sealed means that the court orders that all documents pertaining to the case - court records, police and probation reports - are sealed and inaccessible. (Exceptions to this are DMV records pertaining to driving violations.) Once the records are sealed, a person may legally say that he has no convictions and the courts and law enforcement must say that they have no record of a violation. Records are destroyed five years after they are sealed.

You may petition to have your juvenile records sealed if:

• It has been five years since your supervision by juvenile court ended or you have reached 18 years of age, whichever comes first;
• Your case began and ended in juvenile court;
• You have not been convicted of an adult court felony, or an adult court misdemeanor involving moral turpitude;
• You have not been convicted of any crimes listed under California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 707(b) after turning 14 years of age, including murder, arson, violent felonies, robbery, certain types of assaults and sex offenses and other serious violations;
• You can demonstrate that you have been rehabilitated;
• You do not have civil actions pending against you related to the incident that you wish sealed;
• You have paid all fines and restitution.

Continue reading "Sealing Juvenile Records" »