People v. McDowell
59 Cal. App. 3d 807, 1976 Cal. App. LEXIS 1674, 130 Cal. Rptr. 839 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A condition of probation is valid if it is reasonably related to the crime of which the defendant was convicted and to the prevention of future criminality. A condition is invalid only if it (1) has no relationship to the crime, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality.
Facts:
- On February 20, 1975, Mrs. Dorothy Mogstad's purse was snatched from her arm by an assailant she did not hear approaching.
- She saw someone with dark hair in a dark jacket running away; the assailant was wearing tennis shoes.
- Approximately 10 minutes later and a block away, police officers found a car registered to the appellant illegally parked.
- Inside the car, police saw Mogstad's open purse with its contents strewn on the floor.
- When an officer moved to handcuff the appellant, who was standing by the car, he fled on foot and escaped.
- About an hour later, officers spotted the appellant at a bus stop, but he ran away and escaped a second time.
- Police later located the appellant on a bus, where he provided a false name before being arrested at his home.
- A search of the appellant's home uncovered the clothing described by the victim.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged by information in a trial court with grand theft from a person and receiving stolen property.
- The matter was tried by the court in a bench trial.
- The defendant's motion for acquittal at the close of the prosecution's case was denied.
- The trial court found the defendant guilty of grand theft and acquitted him of receiving stolen property.
- The trial court sentenced the defendant to three years' probation, with a condition that he wear leather shoes with metal taps on the heels and toes anytime he leaves his house.
- The defendant appealed the judgment of conviction to the California Court of Appeal, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the validity of the probation condition.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a condition of probation that requires a defendant convicted of purse snatching to wear shoes with metal taps on the soles and heels whenever leaving his house invalid because it is not reasonably related to the crime or to preventing future criminality?
Opinions:
Majority - Ashby, J.
Yes, the condition as worded is invalid because it is not sufficiently precise, although the underlying concept of such a condition is reasonably related to the crime. A condition of probation is evaluated using a three-part test: it is invalid if it has no relationship to the crime, relates to non-criminal conduct, and is not reasonably related to deterring future criminality. Here, the concept of requiring metal taps on shoes is directly related to the appellant's crime, as he wore quiet tennis shoes to approach his victim stealthily. The noise from the taps would serve as a rehabilitative reminder of his probation status and would reduce his ability to commit similar crimes by eliminating the element of surprise and hindering escape. However, the condition as written—that he must wear them 'anytime he leaves his house'—is overly broad and imprecise. It would unreasonably preclude him from engaging in lawful activities like sports. Therefore, the condition must be remanded to the trial court to be clarified or rephrased with greater precision.
Analysis:
This decision affirms the broad discretion of trial courts to impose creative and unusual probation conditions, provided they are tailored to the specific crime and defendant. It solidifies the application of the 'Dominguez' test, emphasizing that the key is the rational relationship between the condition and the goals of rehabilitation and public safety. The case serves as a crucial reminder that while probation conditions can restrict a defendant's liberty, they must be drafted with precision to avoid being overly broad and infringing on lawful conduct unrelated to the defendant's criminality. Future cases involving unique probation conditions will look to this opinion for guidance on balancing creative sentencing with the need for clarity and reasonableness.
