GOKCEK

People v. GOKCEK

Good Law
42 Cal. Rptr. 3d 405
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 28, 20061-05-AP-000244California4,259 words

Opinion

Opinion

BRIAN C. WALSH, Judge.

Since 1872, California law has allowed the civil compromise of certain misdemeanor offenses if a criminal defendant adequately compensates the person injured for all costs incurred. (Pen.Code, §§ 1377-1379.) Upon proof of compensation and satisfaction of the injured person, the court can dismiss the criminal charges against the defendant.

In the instant case, the criminal defendant sought dismissal of his misdemeanor charge of false imprisonment for an act which occurred on January 3, 2003, against a minor who was 14 years old at the time. The trial court found that a civil compromise was permissible and dismissed the criminal charge against defendant. The People now appeal this ruling and argue that a civil compromise was not available for defendant's offense because the victim was a child [1] .

Here, we will conclude that, though a civil compromise may be permissible where the crime was committed upon a "child", it is prohibited when the offense meets the description of any conduct listed in Penal Code sections 647.6 (annoying or molesting children) and 11165.6 (child abuse or neglect). Further, we conclude that a civil compromise is prohibited for any…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.