People v. Nelson
240 Cal. App. 4th 488, 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 810, 192 Cal. Rptr. 3d 760 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person is guilty of solicitation of murder if they solicit a second person to solicit a third person to commit murder. The crime is complete upon the act of solicitation with the requisite intent, regardless of whether the communication is made directly to the ultimate perpetrator or through an intermediary.
Facts:
- Eric Scott Nelson was engaged in a contentious divorce with his wife, Jane Doe.
- Nelson's friend and tenant, Laura Tatarzyn, mentioned that a friend had joked about hiring a hitman in Tijuana to kill her own boyfriend.
- A week or two later, Nelson asked Tatarzyn for the contact information of the hitman to 'take care of' his wife.
- When Tatarzyn later mentioned she was going to Tijuana, Nelson said, 'You should ask for a two-for-one deal.'
- Fearing for Doe's life, Tatarzyn informed Doe, who then contacted the police.
- Working with police, Tatarzyn gave Nelson the phone number of an undercover officer, Juan Anguiano, who was posing as the hitman.
- Nelson called Anguiano, confirmed he had a 'job' for him, and agreed to meet with a photo of his wife, an address, and $300.
- After Nelson's girlfriend, Vivian Levinson, learned of the plan and threatened to leave him, Nelson cancelled the meeting and did not go through with it.
Procedural Posture:
- Eric Scott Nelson was charged in trial court with multiple counts, including solicitation to commit murder.
- A jury convicted Nelson on the charge of solicitation to commit murder.
- Nelson also pled guilty to a firearm charge and was convicted by the jury on charges of violating a restraining order and dissuading a witness.
- The trial court sentenced Nelson to a total of eight years in prison.
- Nelson (appellant) appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
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 soliciting a person to find and hire a third person to commit a murder constitute the crime of solicitation of murder under California Penal Code § 653f?
Opinions:
Majority - Ramirez, P. J.
Yes, soliciting a person to find and hire a third person to commit a murder constitutes the crime of solicitation of murder. The essence of criminal solicitation is inducing another to commit a criminal offense. A person who successfully solicits an intermediary to hire a hitman would be an aider and abettor to the murder, and thus guilty of the crime itself. Therefore, soliciting a person to become an aider and abettor by finding a perpetrator is equivalent to soliciting them to 'commit or join in the commission of murder' under the statute. The court reasons that to hold otherwise would create a loophole where a person could escape liability by simply placing an intermediary in the chain of communication. The crime is completed by the solicitation itself, with the specific intent that the murder be committed, regardless of whether the solicited party agrees or the ultimate crime is carried out.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the California statute for criminal solicitation extends to indirect solicitations made through an intermediary. It prevents defendants from arguing they are not guilty because they did not directly solicit the person who would actually commit the crime. By aligning with the reasoning from other jurisdictions, the court solidifies that the 'heart of the crime is the solicitation' itself—the act of asking with criminal intent—not the directness of the communication with the final perpetrator. This holding closes a potential loophole and broadens the practical application of the solicitation statute to cover more complex, multi-party criminal arrangements.
