What is the test for sexual exploitation under section 288 of the California Child Protection Act?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Leite, A138456 (Cal. App. 2014):

People v. Lopez, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th 1220 is instructive. In that case, the court considered, as an issue of first impression, "whether a touching out of the presence of the defendant can satisfy the touching element within the meaning of section 288." (Lopez, p. 1231.) The court noted that there was "overwhelming evidence that defendant was sexually exploiting" certain children, but that "[t]he question . . . is whether there was sufficient evidence of a touching concurrent with lewd intent, where the girls dressed themselves out of defendant's presence but under defendant's direction." (Id. at p. 1232.) The court concluded, based on the "legislative intent to apply section 288 expansively to any sexually motivated touching," that "section 288 encompasses the defendant's act in the instant case of directing the victims to change into provocative clothing for the sexually motivated purpose of watching the girls search for money in the provocative clothing. The defendant committed the touching acts constructively, through the victims as conduits, for the purpose of sexual arousal. Even though defendant may not have experienced sexual arousal at the moment the victims touched themselves when putting on the provocative clothing, defendant's intent when instigating or causing the touchings was lewd and lascivious within the meaning of section 288, since the touchings were sexually motivated and committed for the purpose of defendant's sexual gratification." The same is true in the present case. Whether or not defendant experienced sexual arousal as the children were actively engaged in the sexual conduct, the evidence supports the finding that his intent when instigating or causing the conduct was lewd and lascivious within the meaning of section 288. The jury could reasonably find that the conduct was sexually motivated and committed for the purpose of defendant's sexual gratification.

2. The jury was properly instructed on the elements of section 288, subdivision (a).

Other Questions


Does a minor have a constitutional privacy right to refuse to report to child protective agencies of a suspected violation of section 288 of the California Child Protection Act? (California, United States of America)
What constitutes sexual abuse, sexual assault and sexual exploitation under section 11165.1 of the California Penal Code? (California, United States of America)
Does section 288 of the California Penal Code protect children from sexual exploitation? (California, United States of America)
Does Section 1108, subdivision (a) of the California Criminal Code, section 352, make evidence of uncharged sexual misconduct in a sexual assault case admissible? (California, United States of America)
What is the relevant case law on sexual assault under section 288 of the California Child Protection Act? (California, United States of America)
Does section 845.3 of the California Fire Protection Act, section 850.4, grant absolute immunity to a police officer for failing to provide adequate fire protection services? (California, United States of America)
For the purposes of section 1108.2(1) of the California Criminal Code, is there any constitutional error in a trial court's decision to instruct the jury in a sexual assault case to consider the use of sexual assault evidence admitted under Section 1108? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for sexual assault under section 288 of the California Child Protection Act? (California, United States of America)
How have courts treated section 827, subd. E. of the California Child Protection Act when dealing with an allegation of sexual assault involving a minor? (California, United States of America)
When a public entity denies a minor's application for leave to present a late claim under section 911.6(b)(2) of the California Child Protection Act, does the minor have to file a petition under section 946.6 to challenge the denial? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.