People v. Navarro
2013 WL 222327, 212 Cal. App. 4th 1336, 152 Cal. Rptr. 3d 109 (2013)
Rule of Law:
A defendant is guilty of assault if they commit an act with awareness of facts that would lead a reasonable person to realize that physical force would directly, naturally, and probably result from their conduct; and a statute prohibiting witness intimidation is not unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment or vague under the Due Process Clause if it requires specific intent to prevent a victim or witness from reporting a crime and is narrowly construed by courts.
Facts:
- David Navarro had lived with Liseth Acosta for 10 years, and they had two children together.
- On January 20, 2010, Navarro and Acosta argued about underwear, during which Navarro head-butted Acosta, causing injury near her eye.
- Acosta used a cordless phone to call the sheriff's department, but Navarro grabbed the phone from her, removed the battery, and placed it in a closet.
- Navarro then walked out to his car in the driveway, and Acosta followed him, asking for the house keys.
- Acosta walked back into the house through the laundry room, closing and locking the door behind her.
- As Acosta left the laundry room, she heard a gunshot, and a bullet passed through the door she had just closed, penetrating the laundry room wall and coming to rest in an adjacent bedroom.
- Acosta called 911 on her cell phone; while she was on the line, Navarro called her and told her to tell the deputies that 'everything is fine'.
- Navarro was later located by deputies driving on a nearby highway and was arrested in Anaheim after a high-speed chase.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant David Navarro was charged by information in the superior court (trial court) with multiple offenses, including attempted murder, assault with a semiautomatic firearm, shooting at an inhabited dwelling, corporal injury to a cohabitant, child abuse, preventing or dissuading a witness from reporting a crime (Penal Code § 136.1, subd. (b)(1)), evading an officer, and negligent discharge of a firearm, along with firearm enhancements.
- The jury in the superior court found Navarro not guilty of attempted murder but guilty of assault with a semiautomatic firearm, shooting at an inhabited dwelling, witness intimidation, evading an officer, negligent discharge of a firearm, and lesser included offenses of battery against a child’s parent and willful cruelty to a child, finding true the firearm enhancement for assault.
- The trial court sentenced Navarro to a total term of 21 years in state prison.
- Navarro appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, challenging, among other things, the sufficiency of the evidence for the assault conviction and the constitutionality of Penal Code section 136.1, subdivision (b)(1).
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 Penal Code section 136.1, subdivision (b)(1), which criminalizes dissuading a witness, violate the First Amendment as unconstitutionally overbroad or the Due Process Clause as unconstitutionally vague, and was there insufficient evidence to establish the requisite mental state for David Navarro's conviction of assault with a semiautomatic firearm?
Opinions:
Majority - Maneela, J.
No, Penal Code section 136.1, subdivision (b)(1) does not violate the First Amendment or Due Process Clause, and there was sufficient evidence to establish the requisite mental state for David Navarro's conviction of assault with a semiautomatic firearm. The court found substantial evidence that David Navarro had the necessary mental state for assault. Under People v. Williams (2001) and People v. Wyatt (2010), the prosecution's burden for assault is met when there is substantial evidence that the defendant knowingly committed acts that a reasonable person would know were likely to result in injury. The defendant need not be subjectively aware that his act is capable of causing great bodily injury, only aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to realize a battery would directly, naturally, and probably result. Here, Navarro retrieved a loaded gun and fired it at the door through which Acosta had just passed, an act a reasonable person would realize was likely to result in physical force applied to another. The court rejected the argument that Navarro needed special expertise with firearms, noting common knowledge about guns' force. Regarding Penal Code section 136.1, subdivision (b)(1), the court held it does not violate the First Amendment as unconstitutionally overbroad. The statute does not target speech alone but proscribes any conduct, including verbal dissuasion, with the specific intent of preventing or impeding a person from reporting a crime. California has a strong governmental interest in protecting citizens who report crimes. The statute's 'plainly legitimate sweep' is extensive, especially as it has been subject to narrowing construction by courts, requiring specific intent. The court dismissed Navarro's hypotheticals as 'fanciful.' The court also rejected the claim that the statute is unconstitutionally vague. The words are clear and provide fair warning to ordinary intelligence that preventing or dissuading a person from reporting a crime is itself a crime. The statute provides explicit standards for enforcement and does not impermissibly delegate policy matters. The court found no basis for the statute being 'fatally uncertain' or vague.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the mens rea for assault in California, emphasizing an objective 'reasonable person' standard based on facts known to the defendant, rather than subjective awareness of the risk of injury. It also reinforces the constitutionality of witness intimidation statutes like Penal Code section 136.1, subdivision (b)(1), against First Amendment overbreadth and vagueness challenges, particularly when courts apply a specific intent requirement. This ruling provides a strong precedent for prosecutors in domestic violence and other cases where defendants attempt to suppress reporting, ensuring that such protective statutes are upheld despite claims of infringing on free speech.
