In Re Eichorn

Good Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 1100·69 Cal. App. 4th 382·81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 535·99 Daily Journal DAR 659·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 588
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 30, 1998G022777California3,475 words

Opinion

Opinion

Crosby, J.

James Warner Eichorn was convicted of a misdemeanor violation of a City of Santa Ana ordinance banning sleeping in designated public areas. The appellate department affirmed his conviction and denied his request to transfer the cause. Eichorn thereafter petitioned for writ of habeas corpus in this court. We conclude his conviction must be set aside.

I

James Eichorn was cited for violation of the city’s anticamping ordinance (Santa Ana Mun. Code, ch. 10, art. VIII, § 10-402) on the evening of January 25, 1993. Following a detour to the Supreme Court that established the ordinance was facially constitutional (Tobe v. City of Santa Ana (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1069 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 402 , 892 P.2d 1145 ]), Eichorn’s case eventually went to trial.

In a significant pretrial ruling, the court (Judge James M. Brooks) determined Eichorn could not present a necessity defense (see CALJIC No. 4.43) to a jury. Eichorn had offered to prove that on the night of the violation every shelter bed within the city that was available to a homeless single man with no children was occupied, and that he was involuntarily homeless, i.e., he had done everything he could to alleviate his condition. Due…

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.