California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Monroe, 168 Cal.App.3d 1205, 215 Cal.Rptr. 51 (Cal. App. 1985):
"We conclude the registration requirement for the offense herein is valid and the court erred in ordering the defendant need not register pursuant to section 290." (People v. Tate, supra, 164 Cal.App.3d at pp. 137-140, 210 Cal.Rptr. 117.)
Appellant argues that People v. Tate, supra, is distinguishable based upon the nature of the offense and the offender as compared to this case. In Tate the defendant actually effected a vaginal penetration of the seven-year-old daughter of his live-in girlfriend. In the instant case, appellant was a friend of the family of the victim, who was to stay all night with them. On the first occasion, appellant "squeezed and rubbed" the vaginal area of the 10-year-old victim with his hand for about one minute. The victim then pushed appellant away and he left.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.