People v. Smith

Good Law
11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 290·2004 Cal. LEXIS 2553·2004 Daily Journal DAR 3831·32 Cal. 4th 792·86 P.3d 348
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 29, 2004S108291California3,722 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kennard, J.

Defendant, a convicted sex offender, is required to register with the police and tell them where he is living. (Pen. Code, § 290.) He was charged with failure to register, in violation of section 290, subdivision (g), because he failed to inform the police of a change of address within five working days, as required by section 290, subdivision (f)(1). Defendant claimed he mailed the required notice, but the police did not receive it. After the trial court told the jury that a registered sex offender must see to it that the written notification of a change of address is actually received by the police, defendant was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison.

We conclude that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that a registrant who mails a change-of-address notice within the statutory five-day period nevertheless violates section 290 if the police do not actually receive the notice. Under the circumstances here the error was prejudicial. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming defendant’s conviction.

I

Defendant lived in Long Beach, California. He published an advertising newspaper, the Bixby Beat, with a circulation of…

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.