California Court of Appeal Dec 15, 2015 No. D065992Unpublished
Filed 12/15/15 P. v. Rief CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D065992
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD242110)
TAMMY CHERIE RIEF,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kenneth
K. So, Judge. Affirmed.
Raymond Mark DeGuiseppe, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson, Lynne G.
McGinnis and Kristin A. Guiterrez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
This case involves Tammy Cherie Rief's 2012 abduction of J., who is her and
Brian S.'s now-eight-year-old son. A jury found Rief guilty of one count of malicious
child abduction in violation of Penal Code1 section 278.5, subd. (a) (section 278.5(a)).
The court sentenced her to the upper term of three years in county jail (§ 1170, subd.
Rief appeals, contending her conviction must be reversed because (1) the
judgment is based upon an unconstitutional application of section 278.5(a) that
effectively compelled a finding against her on the crucial and sole issue of "malice,"
thereby relieving the prosecution of its ultimate burden of proof and depriving her of any
meaningful opportunity for a defense; (2) the court prejudicially erred by denying her
request that the jury be instructed on the common law defense of necessity; (3) section
278.7, which provides what the parties refer to as a statutory "good cause defense" to the
crime of malicious child abduction (§ 278.5(a)), is unconstitutional both facially and as
applied to her; and (4) the cumulative effect of the foregoing claimed trial errors violated
her fundamental due process right to a fair trial. We reject these contentions and affirm
the judgment.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. The People's Case
In late 2006 and again in early 2007, Rief and Brian S. dated while they were
living in San Diego County. About a month after the relationship ended, Brian S. learned
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 2
that Rief was pregnant. Brian S. tried to stay in touch with Rief during her pregnancy,
but he lost contact with her because she did not respond to his telephone calls and text
messages.
In December 2007 Rief's father called Brian S. and informed him that Rief was in
labor. Brian S. went to the hospital and was present during the birth of their son, J. Brian
S. spent the next few days with J. and then left California on a preplanned trip for about a
week and a half. When he returned, he saw J. almost every day. However, within a
month, Rief began to keep Brian S. from J. by making excuses as to why Brian S. could
not see their son. At one point Rief left on a two-week trip without telling Brian S. and
she did not respond to his phone calls.
In November 2008 Rief informed Brian S. she was taking J. out of the state for the
holidays. Concerned that Rief might not return, Brian S. commenced a paternity action
and informed her there was a restraining order that prevented her from taking J. out of the
state without his consent. Brian S. testified he told Rief he would consent if she gave him
some assurance she would return, and Rief agreed to sign a statement stating her intent to
return. She told Brian S. her attorney would contact him to make the arrangements, but
she then left before making any further contact with Brian S.
In February 2009 Rief commenced a paternity action in Alabama, where she was
living with J. The Alabama court initially granted Rief temporary custody of J., but later
relinquished jurisdiction to the California court where Brian S. had filed the first paternity
case.
3
Between November 2008 and October 2009 Brian S. made repeated·attempts to
contact Rief because he wanted to see J., but she did not respond to his messages. At one
point, Rief's attorney called Brian S. and told him Rief did not intend to return to
California.
In October 2009 Brian S. obtained a custody order from a California family court
providing him the right to immediate visitation with J. and regular visitation thereafter for
the first week of each month. The order also allowed Brian S. to contact J. by telephone
and Skype.
Despite the custody order, over the next several months Rief only permitted Brian
S. to have J. on eight of the 25 scheduled days of visitation. Rief regularly failed to
comply with the order for telephone and Skype calls.
On November 8, 2009, immediately after Brian S.'s first regular visit with J., Rief
took J. to a hospital to report alleged abuse. J. had minor bruises on his face, right arm
and left foot and a small laceration on his face. Brian S. testified that the wound to J''s
cheek occurred when he fell onto a bush at his residence. Child Protective Services
(CPS)2 investigated the alleged abuse and determined the accusations were unfounded.
In December 2009 Rief claimed J. was sick and did not permit Brian S. to see him.
In January 2010 Brian S. was required by Rief's counsel and her father to sign a
contract agreeing he would travel to Alabama to visit J., but not take J. out of the state,
2 Although this agency in San Diego County is called Child Welfare Services, the parties on appeal refer to the agency as CPS. To avoid confusion, this court shall also refer to the agency as CPS. 4
despite a custody order allowing him to take J. to California. After Brian S. traveled to
Alabama, Rief kept him from seeing J. until the third day of the five-day visit.
In February 2010 Rief again prevented Brian S. from seeing J. Rief informed
Brian S. that J. was unavailable for their visit because she had scheduled a medical
procedure during Brian S.'s visitation time. The procedure was eventually postponed at
the request of Brian S.'s attorney because Brian S. had not consented to it. Brian S. went
to Alabama and tried to see J. for his scheduled visit, but when Brian S. spoke to Rief on
the phone, she told him he was not welcome. When Brian S. went to the house where
Rief was staying, she did not answer the door. While he was waiting in his car, Brian S.
received a call from Rief's father, who yelled at him.
Rief did not permit Brian S. to see J. until the end of March 2010 when she came
to California for an appointment. Rief thereafter prevented Brian S. from seeing J. for the
majority of his scheduled visits, including a six-month period when she did not permit
him to see J. at all.
In November 2010 the California family court issued an order temporarily
granting Brian S. sole physical custody of J. as a result of Rief's failure to obey the earlier
custody orders.
Rief was ordered to appear with J. before the Alabama court judge on December 2,
2010, in order to relinquish him to Brian S. Rief appeared, but she did not bring J. The
Alabama court held Rief in contempt and ordered her jailed until she relinquished J. Two
days later, Rief's father brought J. to Brian S. and they returned to San Diego.
5
In January 2011 Rief returned to San Diego for custody hearings. A custody trial
took place between January and June. Both parents sought sole physical custody of J.
In April 2011 Rief went to the San Diego County District Attorney's Office and
requested assistance in obtaining full custody of J. She met with District Attorney
Investigator Carole Snyder, who reviewed paperwork that Rief provided concerning the
custody proceedings. Snyder did not open a case because, at the time, Rief had no
custodial rights and J. was not a missing child. Instead, Snyder advised Rief to retain an
attorney and file an ex parte motion for custody of J. She then learned that a custody
hearing was already scheduled. Rief did not make any allegations of abuse.
On June 20, 2011, Rief contacted the San Diego Police Department to report
bruising and abrasions on J.
On June 23, 2011, the court issued a child custody order (custody order) granting
Rief and Brian S. joint physical and legal custody of J. but gave Brian S. the "tie-breaking
vote" when it came to legal decisions. The custody order provided that J.'s residence
would be in Southern California for a period of five years and that Rief could not remove
him from the area without Brian S.'s consent.
In March 2012 after Rief failed to bring J. to preschool according to the schedule
set by the court, the court ordered her to comply. On March 13, 2012, the court ordered
that J. attend a third day of preschool a week, after an additional day was recommended
by his teacher and Reif resisted. The order gave Brian S. sole control over decisions
related to therapy sessions for J. About a week later, Brian S. filed a motion for sole
legal custody of J. A court hearing was set for July 2, 2012.
6
Sometime in mid-March, Rief contacted Mark Davis of the Alabama Family
Rights Association. Rief sought Davis's advice about how to move the custody
proceedings from California to Alabama.
On April 2, 2012, Davis met with Rief and her father in Alabama and he reviewed
paperwork she provided. Davis told Rief she should seek the advice of an attorney and
recommended one. Davis met with her again later that month. During the meetings, Rief
made vague allegations of abuse and stated she thought that Brian S. might take J. out of
the country, but her primary concern appeared to be moving the custody proceedings to
Alabama.
On Apri1 27, 2012, Rief picked J. up from his preschool. That was the last day he
attended.
On April 30, 2012, Rief failed to bring J. to Brian S. at the agreed-upon time and
location. He tried calling Rief, but her phone had been disconnected. When he was
unable to find Rief at either address she had provided the court, Brian S. called the police.
He was referred to the district attorney's office, where he met with Investigator Snyder.
Snyder attempted to locate Rief but was unsuccessful. Brian S. did not see J. for more
than six months.
During this time Rief was living with J. in Charlotte, North Carolina, with Robin
Evans and Gwendolyn Buckingham. Evans's sister's husband, D. Riley Bell, visited the
home several times during the summer and got to know Rief─who went by the name
"Julie"─and J.─who went by the name "Nicko." Although J. seemed happy, he seldom
went outside, and when he did, he usually covered himself with longsleeved shirts and
7
pants, which was unusual given the hot weather. Also, sheets were used to cover the
windows in the room where Rief and J. were staying to keep people from seeing in. Bell
searched the Internet and found pictures of J. and Rief on the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children (NCMEC) website. After learning that Rief and J. were sought in
connection with a missing child case, Bell told his wife they should not be helping Rief.
He called NCMEC and turned them in. Bell later spoke to Investigator Synder and gave
her the information he had. Bell's wife and sister-in-law were very upset and thought he
had violated "family trust."
In early November 2012 Charlotte police officers responded to the home with a
warrant for Rief's arrest. Buckingham was hesitant to speak to the officers and at first
denied Rief and J. were there. After she was warned she could be charged with harboring
them if she was lying, she let the police inside and directed them upstairs. Officers found
Rief hiding under a pile of clothes and holding J. She had changed her hair color from
blonde to brown. Rief was arrested and one of the officers interviewed J. before he was
placed into the custody of social services.
Brian S. flew to Charlotte the day after J. was found. Brian S. testified that J.
looked disheveled, he was not clean, and he had long, oily hair that had some highlights
in it. After Brian S. brought J. back to San Diego, J. seemed scared and quiet, and he
exhibited unusual behaviors, such as avoiding windows and ducking down when cars
passed by the house. After several weeks of being in Brian S.'s care, J. returned to his
normal, happy self.
8
About two weeks after Brian S. and J. returned to San Diego, Snyder and CPS
worker Lupita Castro interviewed them concerning allegations J. was sexually abused
while in Brian S.'s care. The allegations were subsequently deemed unfounded. During
the interview, J. was very outgoing and happy, and he appeared to have a loving
relationship with Brian S.
Brian S. testified he never abused J. Acknowledging that J. sometimes got bruises
or scratches while in his care, Brian S. testified he often noticed bruises and scratches on
J. after he was with Rief.
Melissa Reed, the director of the preschool in Carlsbad that J. attended between
April 2011 and April 2012, testified that during that period of time she never noticed any
signs that J. was being abused and J.'s teacher never reported to her that he was being
physically abused. Reed testified she noticed J. tended to be a little withdrawn, fearful
and not very open to interaction on the days when Rief dropped him off, and he seemed
happier and more interactive and outgoing after he was in Brian S.'s care.
B. The Defense
Rief did not testify. The first defense witness was Penelope Nagel, who testified
that she and Rief became close friends in around December 2010. Nagel spent the most
time with Rief between the end of 2011 and the beginning of 2012. During this period,
as J. was spending more time with Brian S., J.'s behavior started changing and he became
"much more hostile" to the point Nagel felt she could not trust him because he was hitting
and scratching her son. These problems continued to worsen up to the time Rief left with
J. in April 2012. Nagel had also noticed suspicious bruising on J. beginning in the
9
summer of 2011. She testified one was large, "very odd," and appeared to be some sort
of puncture wound on J.'s back. Another across his back was "like a stripe." Nagel never
had any reason to suspect that Rief inflicted those injuries.
Nagel also testified that sometime between August and late October 2011, J.
complained about pain in his "butt." Rief and Nagel looked and noticed redness around
J.'s anus. J. pointed to his buttocks and said "Poppa Pete" had "hurt" him and had put a
screwdriver in his "butt." Nagel testified she did not know who "Poppa Pete" was. At
some point while in Nagel's presence, Rief had made phone calls to agencies that assist in
child custody cases. Nagel accompanied Rief to a meeting with a CPS worker in
February 2012 about the situation, although neither of them raised sexual abuse
allegations. Nagel then began spending less time with Rief and J. She testified she had a
hard time being around them because she felt powerless to help with the situation. Nagel
also testified she was supportive of Rief, but she would not commit perjury for her.
Marnie Cheney had known Rief for many years and they were friends. Around
the end of 2009, Rief began expressing concerns to her about J.'s well-being, saying he
was sick more often and would come home with bruises on his body after being with
Brian S. Cheney noticed such bruises on J.'s arms and legs on four or five occasions
between then and November 2011. (7RT 582-584, 585:2-4, 593:22-28)! Cheney also
noticed J.'s behavior became more aggressive. Sometime in late 2010 or early 2011,
Cheney was with Rief and Nagel when J. said that someone had put something up his
"butt," and they noticed red marks on his buttocks. Cheney was also aware of times
10
during this period when Brian S. refused to let Rief take J. to the doctor even though J.
was ill.
Jessica Salazar, a CPS worker, interviewed Brian S. concerning allegations of
physical abuse but determined the allegations were unsubstantiated. Brian S. said he had
disciplined J. by placing him in a five-minute "time-out," grabbing his ear when he
wouldn't listen, and slapping him on the bottom. She checked J.'s body and he did not
have any suspicious marks or bruises. Although he had bruises on his shins, they were
typical for a child of J.'s age.
C. The People's Rebuttal
Regina Misch, Rief's best friend, testified that when she saw Rief and J. on three
occasions between the end of 2010 and April 2012, she did not notice any unusual marks,
bruises, or anything else that led her to suspect J. was being abused or neglected. Misch
acknowledged, however, that she made two reports to CPS based on concerns Rief
expressed to her. One of the times Misch contacted CPS was after J. was discovered in
Charlotte and returned to Brian S.
In November 2012 CPS worker Lupita Castro conducted an investigation into
allegations Brian S. had sexually abused J. prior to March 2012. During her investigation
she separately interviewed Brian S. and J. During J.'s interview, he complained about his
"butt hurting" but it did not appear to be related to sexual abuse. At Castro's
recommendation, Brian S. had J. examined by a doctor. Based on the interviews and a
report from the doctor, Castro found no evidence of sexual abuse and the allegations were
deemed unfounded. CPS had previously received referrals for alleged abuse of J.
11
Castro also testified that on November 20, 2009, allegations of physical and
emotional abuse were made against Brian S. The case was "evaluated out" because it
was already being investigated by another agency. On May 17, 2011, allegations of
physical abuse and neglect were made against Brian S., which were deemed unfounded.
On December 14, 2011, allegations of neglect were made against both parents, and they
were later deemed unfounded.
Brian S.'s girlfriend, Denise G., testified she had spent a lot of time around Brian
S. and J. over the years. J. received bruises typical for a child of his age when he was in
both parents care. She had never seen Brian S. abuse J. and had never heard J. complain
about anyone putting something in his bottom.
DISCUSSION
I. CLAIM OF INSTRUCTIONAL ERROR (CALCRIM No. 1251) AND RELATED CLAIM THAT SECTION 278.5(a) WAS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED
Rief claims her conviction of malicious child abduction must be reversed because
it is "based upon an unconstitutional application of section 278.5[(a)], which effectively
compelled a finding against [her] on the crucial and sole issue of 'malice,' thereby
relieving the prosecution of its ultimate burden of proof and depriving [her] of any
meaningful opportunity for a defense." In support of this claim, she contends the court's
instruction on this crime under CALCRIM No. 1251 lowered the prosecution's burden of
proof because it effectively compelled a finding of "malice" that was based solely on her
act of taking a child (J.) in violation of a court order (the June 23, 2011 custody order)
"regardless of any justification, excuse, or mitigating circumstances behind her actions."
12
We reject Rief's claims because CALCRIM No. 1251 correctly instructed the jury on the
elements of malicious child abduction and the definition of malice, that instruction did
not lessen the prosecution's burden of proof, and, thus, section 278.5(a) was not
unconstitutionally applied to her.
A. Applicable Legal Principles
"The trial court is obligated to instruct the jury on all general principles of law
relevant to the issues raised by the evidence, whether or not the defendant makes a formal
request." (People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 744.) "'"The general principles of law
governing the case are those principles closely and openly connected with the facts
before the court, and . . . necessary for the jury's understanding."'" (People v. Breverman
(1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 154.)
We generally review de novo a claim of instructional error. (People v. Posey
(2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218.) "In assessing a claim of instructional error, we examine the
instructions as a whole. The test we apply is whether there is a reasonable likelihood the
jurors would have understood the instructions in a manner that violated a defendant's
rights." (People v. Hajek and Vo (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1144, 1246.)
B. Analysis
Rief was convicted of a violation of section 278.5(a), which defines the crime of
malicious child abduction and expressly applies to "[e]very person who takes, entices
13
away, keeps, withholds, or conceals a child and maliciously deprives a lawful custodian
of a right to custody."3 (Italics added.)
The court instructed the jury under CALCRIM No. 1251 on the three elements of
malicious child abduction as follows:
"The defendant is charged in Count One with depriving someone else of the right to custody in violation of Penal Code section 278.5.
"To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that:
"1. The defendant took, enticed away, kept, withheld, or concealed a child;
"2. The child was under the age of 18;
"AND
"3. When the defendant acted, she maliciously deprived a lawful custodian of his right to custody." (Italics added.)
At issue here is the third element, which required the prosecution to prove beyond
a reasonable doubt that "[w]hen the defendant acted, she maliciously deprived a lawful
custodian of his right to custody." (CALCRIM No. 1251.) Rief does not challenge the
correctness of the foregoing statement in CALCRIM No. 1251 of the third element of the
crime of malicious child abduction. Instead, she challenges the definition of the term
3 Section 278.5(a) provides in full: "Every person who takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals a child and maliciously deprives a lawful custodian of a right to custody, or a person of a right to visitation, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for 16 months, or two or three years, a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or both that fine and imprisonment." (Italics added.)
14
"maliciously" provided by that instruction. The standard version of CALCRIM No.
1251, which the court gave to the jury in this case, defines the term "maliciously" as
follows:
"Someone acts maliciously when he or she intentionally does a wrongful act or when he or she acts with the unlawful intent to disturb, defraud, annoy, or injure someone else." (Second italics added.)
Under this definition, the prosecution can establish the malice element of the
crime of malicious child abduction by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant "intentionally" did the alleged wrongful act. (CALCRIM No. 1251.)
Rief's claims are premised on her assertion that the definition of "maliciously" in
CALCRIM No. 1251 is "incomplete." Specifically she contends the court was required
to add language to the definition of the term "maliciously" in CALCRIM No. 1251 to
require the prosecution to prove not only that the defendant intentionally did the alleged
wrongful act, but also that she did so without justification, excuse, or mitigating
circumstances. Thus, Rief asserts, the definition of "maliciously" in CALCRIM No.
1251 is not "[c]orrect and complete . . . unless the intentional doing of the wrongful act
was without justification, excuse, or mitigating circumstances."
Rief further asserts that as a result of the incomplete definition of "maliciously" in
CALCRIM No. 1251, "the mere act of taking the child in violation of a custody order
will necessarily constitute 'malice' regardless of the existence of any justification, excuse,
or mitigating circumstances that may exist." Thus, she maintains, the prosecution's
burden of proof is "reduced from three elements to two."
15
Rief's claims and assertions are unavailing. CALCRIM No. 1251 correctly defines
malice by virtually mirroring the language of section 7, subdivision (4), which provides
that "[t]he words 'malice' and 'maliciously' import a wish to vex, annoy, or injure another
person, or an intent to do a wrongful act, established either by proof or presumption of
law." (Italics added.) The California Supreme Court has recognized that the definition of
malice set forth in section 7, subdivision (4), applies to section 278.5(a). (People v.
Neidinger (2006) 40 Cal.4th 67, 79.)
Contrary to Rief's claim, CALCRIM No. 1251 did not permit the jury to convict
her of count 1 based solely upon her commission of the "wrongful act" of depriving Brian
S. of his right to custody by taking and concealing J. in violation of the custody order.4
As pertinent here, the instruction required the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that Rief acted maliciously when she deprived Brian S. of his right to custody by
intentionally doing the wrongful act charged in count 1. Thus, the prosecution had to
prove not only that Rief committed the charged wrongful act, but also that she did so
intentionally. Because the prosecution was required to prove the element of malice by
proving Rief intentionally violated the custody order, Rief's claim that the definition of
malice in CALCRIM No. 1251 reduced the prosecution's burden of proof "from three
elements to two" is without merit.
4 Count 1 alleged that Rief "did unlawfully and maliciously take, entice away, keep, withhold and conceal a child, to wit: [J.], and deprive a lawful custodian of a right to custody and a person of a right to visitation in violation of [section] 278.5(a)." 16
Rief contends the decision in People v. Diaz (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1484
supports her claim that the court's malice instruction under CALCRIM No. 1251 was
flawed because it permitted the jury to find her guilty based solely on the act of taking J.
in violation of a custody order. Her reliance on Diaz is misplaced. In that case the Court
of Appeal found the jury was erroneously instructed that the failure to yield the right of
way for an emergency vehicle could serve as one of three requisite predicate offenses to
establish the "willful or wanton disregard for safety" element of evasion in violation of
Vehicle Code section 2800.2. (Diaz, at pp. 1490-1491.) The Diaz court reasoned it was
impossible to evade a pursuing police vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2
without also failing to yield to it in violation of Vehicle Code section 21806, making it a
lesser included offense and reducing the number of violations the People had to prove
from three to two. (Id. at p. 1491.) Diaz is inapposite because it involved a completely
different statute that required the prosecution to specifically prove three different
predicate offenses to establish an element of the charged offense.
We reject Rief's contention that CALCRIM No. 1251 "effectively created an
unconstitutionally impermissible" presumption of malice based upon the "undisputed"
facts that she took a child under 18 years of age in violation of a court order. The court's
instructions under CALCRIM No. 1251 did not require the jury to find or presume that
Rief acted with malice in the event the jury found she violated the custody order when
she took J. The instructions did not tell the jury it must presume anything and did not
refer to the custody orders. Although the jury could find from the evidence that taking J.
out of California violated the custody order, and that violating the custody order was a
17
"wrongful act," these findings of fact alone were insufficient to compel a conviction
under the court's instructions. For reasons already discussed, the prosecution was still
required to prove that Rief intentionally did this wrongful act. In other words, she had to
know what she was doing was wrong and purposely did it anyway. Thus, the jury could
have acquitted Rief had it found the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving
beyond a reasonable doubt that she intentionally violated the custody order. This could
have occurred if, for example, there was insufficient proof she knew about the custody
order or if the custody order was ambiguous as to whether she could take Jonah out of the
state. We conclude the instructions did not create a mandatory presumption requiring the
jury to find Rief acted with malice if it found she violated a custody order by taking J.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we reject Rief's claims of instructional and
constitutional error.
II. CLAIM OF INSTRUCTIONAL ERROR (FAILURE TO INSTRUCT ON THE DEFENSE OF NECESSITY)
Rief also contends the court prejudicially erred by denying her request that the
court instruct the jury on the common law affirmative defense of necessity. Specifically,
she contends the court was required to give a necessity instruction in this case based on
evidence showing that she took J. to Charlotte, North Carolina, because she had a good
faith, objectively reasonable belief she needed to keep him away from Brian S. to protect
J. from "ongoing physical and emotional abuse, neglect, and perhaps even sexual abuse";
and that there was no adequate alternative "that would or could have achieved the
objective of keeping J. away from [Brian S.]." was abusing him. We conclude the court
18
properly refused to give the requested necessity defense instruction because the evidence
was insufficient to support all of the elements of the defense.
A. Background
Before trial, the prosecution filed a brief asserting Rief should not be permitted to
present a necessity defense because she "[could] not prove she had no reasonable
alternative to committing the charged offense."
Rief thereafter filed an in limine motion seeking admission of evidence of her
belief that J. would be "exposed to significant bodily and/or emotional harm" if he were
placed back in Brian S.'s care. She argued such evidence would support her claim of
legal necessity.
In its opposition to Rief's motion, the prosecution argued Rief should not be
allowed to present a necessity defense and sought to exclude all evidence of alleged
abuse or neglect prior to the issuance of the family court's June 23, 2011 custody order,
as well as opinion testimony that she had a good faith and reasonable belief of possible
harm to J.
During a hearing on the motions in limine, defense counsel indicated the defense
was seeking an instruction on necessity. The prosecutor argued that because the defense
would not be able to prove that any abuse actually occurred, there was not enough
evidence Rief took the child to prevent a significant and imminent evil. The prosecutor
noted reasonable legal alternatives were available to Rief, such as reporting the abuse to
the police or CPS, or asking for a modification of the custody order or for a restraining
order. The prosecutor indicated that she did not think Rief acted with the requisite good
19
faith and objectively reasonable belief, and that it was arguable Rief created a greater
danger by subjecting J. to emotional harm and instability when she took him away from
his father and was "on the run."
Defense counsel replied that the prosecutor's arguments for the jury, and Rief
deserved to "put on the defense in her case." In response to inquiries by the court,
defense counsel set forth the evidence she believed would show Rief took the action to
avoid a significant and imminent evil and that Rief exhausted all reasonable alternatives.
Indicating there might be sufficient evidence to allow Rief to present a necessity defense,
the court deferred its ruling.
At another pretrial hearing, the court questioned whether there was enough
evidence of two elements of the necessity defense (lack of an adequate legal alternative
and the existence of an actual emergency) to support giving CALCRIM No. 3403, the
standard instruction on that defense. The court expressed its opinion it would be hard for
the defense to meet its burden. It continued to defer its ruling.
At trial, following the prosecution's case in chief and during the defense case,
defense counsel stated she did not know whether Rief would testify, and she indicated
she was unsure whether the defense wanted a necessity defense instruction.
The next day, the prosecutor indicated she was seeking an instruction on the
statutory "good cause defense" and defense counsel indicated she wanted a necessity
defense instruction. The court initially indicated it would give both instructions.
However, after discussion about the burden of proof required, the court questioned
defense counsel about the evidence that there were no adequate legal alternatives.
20
Defense counsel indicated she would rather not confuse the jury by giving instructions on
the two defenses. The court deferred its ruling until all of the evidence was presented.
After the last witness testified, the court ruled it was not going to give an
instruction on either the statutory good cause defense or the necessity defense because
there was insufficient evidence to support those instructions.
B. Applicable Legal Principles
A trial court has a duty to instruct on a particular defense "'only if it appears that
the defendant is relying on such a defense, or if there is substantial evidence supportive of
such a defense and the defense is not inconsistent with the defendant's theory of the
case.'" (People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 195.) "Although a trial court should not
measure the substantiality of the evidence by undertaking to weigh the credibility of the
witnesses, the court need not give the requested instruction where the supporting
evidence is minimal and insubstantial." (People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1145,
fn. omitted.)
A necessity defense is recognized in California. (In re Eichorn (1998) 69
Cal.App.4th 382, 388). However, its scope "is very limited and depends on the lack of a
legal alternative to committing the crime. It excuses criminal conduct [only] if it is
justified by a need to avoid an imminent peril and there is no time to resort to the legal
authorities or such resort would be futile." (People v. Beach (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 955,
971, italics added, superseded by statute on another point as stated in People v.
Neidinger, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 76-77.)
21
"To justify an instruction on the defense of necessity, a defendant must present
evidence sufficient to establish that [he] violated the law (1) to prevent a significant and
imminent evil, (2) with no reasonable legal alternative, (3) without creating a greater
danger than the one avoided, (4) with a good faith belief that the criminal act was
necessary to prevent the greater harm, (5) with such belief being objectively reasonable,
and (6) under circumstances in which [he] did not substantially contribute to the
"Section 278.5 does not apply to a person with a right to custody of a child who, with a good faith and reasonable belief that the child, if left with the other person, will suffer immediate bodily injury or emotional harm, takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals that child." (Italics added.)
To be entitled to the section 278.7 "good cause" defense, the defendant must have
complied with certain statutory requirements set forth that section. (See People v.
Mehaisin (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 958, 965 [trial court properly found that defendant who
failed to comply with section 278.7 reporting requirements was not entitled to the section
278.7 defense].) As pertinent here, section 278.7 provides in subdivision (c):
"(c) The person who takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals a child shall do all of the following:
"(1) Within a reasonable time from the taking, enticing away, keeping, withholding, or concealing, make a report to the office of the district attorney of the county where the child resided before the action. The report shall include the name of the person, the current
24
address and telephone number of the child and the person, and the reasons the child was taken, enticed away, kept, withheld, or concealed.
"(2) Within a reasonable time from the taking, enticing away, keeping, withholding, or concealing, commence a custody proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction consistent with the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (Section 1738A, Title 28, United States Code) or the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (Part 3 (commencing with Section 3400) of Division 8 of the Family Code).
"(3) Inform the district attorney's office of any change of address or telephone number of the person and the child." (Italics added.)
Subdivision (d) of section 278.7 sets forth the relevant time frames for compliance
with the subdivision (c) requirements:
"For the purposes of this article, a reasonable time within which to make a report to the district attorney's office is at least 10 days and a reasonable time to commence a custody proceeding is at least 30 days. This section shall not preclude a person from making a report to the district attorney's office or commencing a custody proceeding earlier than those specified times."
B. Rief's Facial Challenge to the Constitutional Validity of Section 278.7
Rief contends section 278.7 is unconstitutional on its face because it "cut[s] off
any meaningful opportunity to defend against the crime of child abduction for the vast
majority of defendants to whom it applies." Specifically, while agreeing there should be
a "good cause defense" for persons who meet what she refers to as the "technical
reporting and custodial proceeding requirements" of section 278.7(a), she contends the
statute is unconstitutional on its face because it "has the effect of unfairly and improperly
cutting off any meaningful opportunity to mount a defense" on the "crucial" issue of
malice "for all defendants who failed to comply with the specific parameters of the
25
reporting and custody proceeding requirements [set forth in subdivisions (c) and (d) of
section 278.7]." We reject this contention.
The principles that guide our analysis are well-established. "The courts will
presume a statute is constitutional unless its unconstitutionality clearly, positively, and
unmistakably appears; all presumptions and intendments favor its validity." (People v.
Falsetta (1999) 21 Cal.4th 903, 912-913.) "'"The burden of establishing the
unconstitutionality of a statute rests on [the party] who assails it."'" (In re York (1995) 9
Cal.4th 1133, 1152.) Furthermore, when we evaluate a facial challenge to the
constitutional validity of a statute, we consider the text of the statute itself, not its
application to the particular circumstances of an individual. (Tobe v. City of Santa Ana
(1995) 9 Cal.4th 1069, 1084.) A facial challenge to a statute is "the most difficult
challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of
circumstances exists under which the [statute] would be valid." (United States v. Salerno
(1987) 481 U.S. 739, 745.)
Section 278.5(a), which defines the crime of malicious child abduction, was
originally enacted "to encourage parents who are unhappy with custody or visitation
provisions under existing conditions to return to the civil court to seek judicial
clarification or modification of the order, and to discourage them from taking the law into
their own hands by concealing the child in a place unknown to the other parent." (People
v. Lortz (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 363, 368 (Lortz).)
While there may be some exceptional situations in which a parent must act in
violation of another's judicially sanctioned custody rights in order to protect his or her
26
child from imminent harm, in order to fulfill the underlying purpose of section 278.5(a)
the circumstances under which a parent may act outside the legal system to prevent such
harm must be carefully limited. In enacting section 278.7, the Legislature balanced the
legitimate competing governmental interests in protecting children from harm and
discouraging parents from "taking the law into their own hands by concealing the child in
a place unknown to the other parent." (Lortz, supra, 137 Cal.App.3d at p. 368.)
Specifically, section 278.7 balances these competing interests by allowing parents to take
a child in violation of another's right to custody if they have a "good faith and reasonable
belief" in the need to do so in order to protect their children from "immediate bodily
injury or emotional harm" (§ 278.7(a)), and they provide specified contact information to
authorities and seek a legal change in custody status within a reasonable period of time
(§ 278.7, subds. (c), (d)).
As noted, Rief contends section 278.7 is unconstitutional on its face because it
prevents defendants who acted out of a good faith and reasonable belief in the need to
protect their children, but failed to meet the requirements of subdivisions (c) and (d) of
that section, from presenting a meaningful defense that they lacked malice. This
contention is unavailing because section 278.7 does not prevent defendants who failed to
comply with its reporting and custody proceeding requirements from presenting a defense
that they did not act maliciously. For example, if the defendant is able to present
evidence he or she acted with the intent to protect the child rather than with the intent to
disturb, defraud, annoy, or injure someone else or with the intent to do a wrongful act, the
defendant may argue the prosecution has not met its burden of proving malice. (See
27
CALCRIM No. 1251.) In an appropriate case, the defendant may present a common law
necessity defense. (See People v. Neidinger, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 78.) Thus, section
278.7 does not prevent defendants from presenting a meaningful defense to the crime of
child abduction. On the contrary, it provides them with an additional statutory defense.
We conclude section 278.7 is not unconstitutional on its face.
C. Rief's As-Applied Challenge to the Constitutional Validity of Section 278.7
Rief also contends section 278.7 is "unconstitutional as applied here." We reject
this contention.
The California Supreme Court has explained that an as-applied challenge to the
constitutional validity of a statute "contemplates analysis of the facts of a particular
case . . . to determine the circumstances in which the statute . . . has been applied and to
consider whether in those particular circumstances the application deprived the individual
to whom it was applied of a protected right." (Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, supra, 9 Cal.4th
at p. 1084.)
Rief asserts that an instruction under section 278.7 "was favorable to the
prosecution, not the defense, for the very reason that . . . an instruction under this
'defense' would have raised the bar for Rief in attempting to challenge the malice element
while having the concomitant effect of lowering the prosecution's burden of proof on this
element." She complains that "[w]hether or not [she] had acted with a 'good faith and
reasonable belief' in the taking [of J.], the prosecution could secure a conviction simply
because she had not complied with the technical reporting and custodial proceeding
requirements." Thus, she asserts, "had the court given the instruction on this 'defense,'
28
Rief would have been left even further hamstrung in her attempts to mount a meaningful
defense on the crucial and sole issue of whether she acted 'maliciously' in the taking of J.
for purposes of the charge under section 278.5[(a)]."
Rief's contention and assertions are unavailing because section 278.7 was not
"applied" to her at all. She requested through her trial counsel that the jury not be
instructed on the section 278.7 defense, and the court ruled it would not give that
instruction.
Rief's as-applied challenge to the constitutional validity of section 278.7 is
essentially a claim that the statutory defense provided by that section is unconstitutional
because it did not apply to her due to the undisputed fact she failed to satisfy the
reporting and custody proceeding requirements of subdivisions (c) and (d) of that section.
However, the fact she was unable to avail herself of this defense does not render section
278.7 unconstitutional. As already discussed, the existence of the good cause defense
provided by section 278.7 did not prevent her from presenting a defense that the
prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she acted
maliciously within the meaning of section 278.5(a). It also did not prevent her from
presenting other defenses such as common law necessity.
Rief also suggests section 278.7 is unconstitutional because she and other
defendants in her situation could not reasonably have been expected to "be aware of the
need" to comply with the reporting requirements set forth in that section. However, "'[i]t
is an emphatic postulate of both civil and penal law that ignorance of a law is no excuse
for a violation thereof. Of course it is based on fiction, because no [person] can know all
29
the law . . . . The rule rests on public necessity; the welfare of society and the safety of
the state depend upon its enforcement.'" (People v. Snyder (1982) 32 Cal.3d 590, 592-
593.) The Attorney General asserts "there are many steps [Rief] could have taken before
or immediately after the abduction which would have resulted in her finding out about the
requirements of section 278.7. Specifically, [she] could have researched the law on her
own, she could have consulted with an attorney specializing in family or criminal law, or
she could have contacted the courts, the district attorney's office, law enforcement or CPS
and explained the situation." We agree.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we conclude Rief has failed to show section 278.7
is unconstitutional on its face or as applied.
IV. CLAIM OF CUMULATIVE ERROR
Last, Rief contends the cumulative effect of the foregoing claimed trial errors
violated her fundamental due process right to a fair trial. We reject this contention.
"'[A] series of trial errors, though independently harmless, may in some
circumstances rise by accretion to the level of reversible and prejudicial error.'" (People
v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1009.) A defendant is "entitled to a fair trial but
not a perfect one." (Ibid.)
"If none of the claimed errors were individual errors, they cannot constitute
cumulative errors that somehow affected the . . . verdict." (People v. Beeler (1995) 9
Cal.4th 953, 994, abrogated on other grounds as recognized by People v. Pearson (2013)
56 Cal.4th 393, 462.)
30
Here, there were no errors that might rise by accretion to the level of reversible
and prejudicial error.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NARES, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
McDONALD, J.
AARON, J.
31
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the jury instructions for malicious child abduction under CALCRIM No. 1251 were legally correct and did not unconstitutionally lower the prosecution's burden of proof regarding the element of malice.
Issues
Whether the trial court's instruction on 'malice' under CALCRIM No. 1251 unconstitutionally relieved the prosecution of its burden of proof.
Whether the trial court erred by denying a jury instruction on the common law defense of necessity.
Whether Penal Code section 278.7 is unconstitutional on its face and as applied.
Whether the cumulative effect of trial errors violated the defendant's due process rights.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“CALCRIM No. 1251 correctly instructed the jury on the elements of malicious child abduction and the definition of malice, that instruction did not lessen the prosecution's burden of proof”
“CALCRIM No. 1251 correctly defines malice by virtually mirroring the language of section 7, subdivision (4)”
“The court's instructions under CALCRIM No. 1251 did not require the jury to find or presume that Rief acted with malice in the event the jury found she violated the custody order”