People v. Gastello
2007 Daily Journal DAR 4968, 149 Cal. App. 4th 943, 57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 293 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person does not commit the necessary voluntary act (actus reus) for the crime of 'bringing' a controlled substance into a jail if they are involuntarily transported to the jail by law enforcement while under arrest.
Facts:
- Officer Jennifer Machado stopped Tommy Gastello for riding a bicycle at night without a light.
- Suspecting Gastello was under the influence of a controlled substance, Machado conducted sobriety tests.
- Following the tests, Officer Machado arrested Gastello, searched him at the scene, but found no drugs.
- Gastello was handcuffed, placed in a police car, and driven to the Kings County Jail.
- En route to the jail, Officer Machado explicitly warned Gastello that it was a felony to bring drugs into the facility.
- During the booking process inside the jail, a search of Gastello's sweatshirt revealed a small plastic bag containing methamphetamine.
Procedural Posture:
- The district attorney filed an information in the trial court charging Tommy Gastello with possession of methamphetamine, bringing a controlled substance into a jail, and being under the influence of a controlled substance.
- A jury in the trial court found Gastello guilty on all counts.
- The trial court imposed an aggregate prison sentence of seven years.
- Gastello, as the appellant, appealed the conviction for bringing a controlled substance into a jail to the Court of Appeal of California, Fifth District, against the People, the respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the involuntary transportation of an arrested individual to a jail by police satisfy the voluntary act (actus reus) requirement for the crime of 'knowingly bringing' a controlled substance into a jail under Penal Code section 4573?
Opinions:
Majority - Wiseman, J.
No. A conviction for bringing a controlled substance into a jail requires a voluntary act (actus reus) of entry, which is not met when an individual is brought into the jail involuntarily under police custody. The court reasoned that criminal liability requires the joint operation of a guilty act and a guilty mind. The statute criminalizes the affirmative act of 'bringing' or 'sending' a substance into a jail. Gastello did not perform this act; he was passively transported to the jail by police after his arrest. His only action was omitting to confess he had drugs, which is not the affirmative act required by the statute. Citing the classic case of Martin v. State, where a conviction for public drunkenness was overturned because the defendant was involuntarily carried into public by police, the court held that Gastello's presence in the jail was not a result of his own volition. Therefore, the essential element of a voluntary act was absent.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the 'actus reus' requirement for crimes involving the illegal transport of items into a restricted area. It establishes a precedent that the element of 'bringing' requires a voluntary act of entry, not merely passive transportation by law enforcement. The ruling prevents prosecutors from 'bootstrapping' a lesser charge, like simple possession, into a more serious felony simply by arresting the suspect and taking them to jail. This reinforces the fundamental principle that criminal liability must be predicated on a defendant's voluntary conduct, protecting individuals from being punished for the consequences of their involuntary movements while in police custody.
