California Criminal Child Pornography Chat-log Computer Marijuana Evidence Lawyers Attorneys

• By Cali Shaye
• Legalize Marijuana
• 14 years ago
• 0

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID NAURATH, Defendant and Appellant.COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICTOctober 1, 2010, Filed

On June 18, 2007, police responded to a report of marijuana growing in an apartment in Bakersfield, California. Appellant David Naurath resided at the apartment. During the search, police seized evidence of marijuana cultivation, as well as a computer tower, compact discs (CDs), and a computer flash memory drive. The computer was located in the living room of the apartment. On January 18, 2008, appellant entered a plea to a charge of cultivating marijuana. During his search of the computer for evidence of marijuana cultivation, Detective Winslow came across numerous images that appeared to contain child pornography. Appellant was convicted of one count of distributing obscene matter depicting a person under the age of 18 years engaging in or simulating sexual conduct (Pen. Code, § 311.1, subd. (a)).

Issues:

Observation and Holding:

It is well settled that in criminal cases, even in the absence of a request, the trial court must instruct on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence. The material distributed by appellant depicts males who clearly appear to be under the age of 18. Furthermore, even if we were to assume that the court erred in not instructing on attempt, we see no reasonable probability that appellant’s jury would have concluded that none of the distributed images depicted a subject under the age of 18, and therefore we see no reasonable probability that appellant would have obtained a more favorable outcome if an attempt instruction had been given.

Under Evidence Code section 352, the trial court enjoys broad discretion in assessing whether the probative value of particular evidence is outweighed by concerns of undue prejudice, confusion or consumption of time. The court observed that even though the chat logs hold little probative value in determining whether the defendant knew the age of the males depicted in the images, it is admissible to show that the defendant is the one who sent the images and he had dominion and control over the computer. The fact that the computer was registered to appellant, the fact that the screen name Lookn4ym2love was registered to appellant’s AOL account, and the stipulation that appellant lived at the apartment were evidence that appellant was a likely user of the Lookn4ym2love screen name, but the defense was that other persons had access to that computer and screen name. The chat logs were significant evidence that appellant (as opposed to possibly someone else who may have had access to the computer) had a sexual interest in the physical appearance and sexual behavior of young males. The chat logs showed that someone who called himself Dave and who described himself as being the same age as appellant and as physically resembling appellant had a sexual interest in the physical appearance and sexual behavior of young males. The defense, through its sole defense witness Onstot, presented testimony that others could use the computer and screen name, but there was no defense evidence that any of those other persons were named Dave or resembled appellant in age and appearance, or had a sexual interest in the physical appearance and sexual behavior of young males. Appellant argues that the court could have redacted the chat logs to make them less prejudicial. He makes no showing, however, that he ever proposed redactions which might have redacted simply what he deemed to be a few of the most egregious portions of the chats.

A defendant may not complain on appeal of prosecutorial misconduct unless in a timely fashion, and on the same ground, the defendant objected to the action and also requested that the jury be admonished to disregard the perceived impropriety.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content