Anderson

People v. Anderson

Good Law
168 Cal. App. 4th 135·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 1813·85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 262
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 15, 2008H031106California2,788 words

Opinion

Opinion

Duffy, J.

Defendant Dale Thomas Anderson was convicted following a jury trial of one count of committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child of 14 or 15 years by a person at least 10 years older than that child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (c)(1); hereafter section 288(c)(1)), and one count of misdemeanor battery (§§ 242, 243, subd. (a)). The sex and battery crimes involved the babysitter of defendant’s minor children. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation with the condition that he serve six months in county jail. The court also ordered defendant to register as a sex offender pursuant to section 290.

Defendant contends that as a result of a misstatement of the law by the prosecution in an argument concerning the element of intent required for the commission of a lewd act and the court’s failure to give a curative instruction, he was deprived of due process. He contends further that he was denied equal protection by being subjected to mandatory registration as a sex offender under section 290.

We conclude that error was committed at the beginning of opening argument when the prosecutor misstated the law concerning the element of intent for the…

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.