People v. Pointer

Last updated
People v. Pointer
Great Seal of California.svg
Court California Court of Appeal
Full case nameThe People, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ruby Pointer, Defendant and Appellant.
DecidedFebruary 17, 1984 (1984-02-17)
Citation(s)151 Cal.App.3d 1128; 199 Cal. Rptr. 357
Court membership
Judges sittingJohn J. Miller, Jerome A. Smith, J. Anthony Kline
Case opinions
Decision byKline
ConcurrenceMiller, Smith
Keywords

People v. Pointer, 151 Cal.App.3d 1128, 199 Cal. Rptr. 357 (1984), is a criminal law case from the California Court of Appeal, First District, is significant because the trial judge included in his sentencing a prohibition on the defendant becoming pregnant during her period of probation. The appellate court held that such a prohibition was outside the bounds of a judge's sentencing authority. The case was remanded for resentencing to undo the overly broad prohibition against conception.

Contents

The trial court's novel sentence, along with the deeply disturbing facts of the case and the appellate court's illustrative discussion of the constitutional and policy problems with pregnancy-related conditions to probation, has merited its inclusion in a widely used Criminal Law casebook for 1L law courses. [1] It is featured in two first-year Criminal Law courses at South Texas College of Law in Houston. The case has also been discussed or mentioned in nearly two dozen academic journal articles relating to court-imposed restrictions on conception or birth, [2] and cited or mentioned in at least sixty-six judicial legal opinions in California, [3] Kansas, [4] Ohio, [5] and Wisconsin. [6]

Background

Ruby Pointer was convicted of child endangerment and violation of a child custody decree; the trial court sentenced her to one year in county jail and five years of probation, including a condition that she must not conceive children during her probation. Pointer adhered to a rigorously disciplined macrobiotic diet that excluded all meat and dairy products, as well as many vegetables. She was a single mother and imposed this diet on her young children as well, disregarding contrary warnings from a physician. [7]

In October 1980, the father of one of the children contacted California's Children's Protective Services, who sent a social worker to meet with the boys and their mother. The state agency instructed Pointer to meet with a pediatrician to discuss the obvious malnourishment of the children, but Pointer declined to do so. A month later, Pointer brought one of the children to a doctor, who observed the child was in the throes of starvation - emaciated, semicomatose, and in a state of shock, and in immediate need of hospitalization. When Pointer refused intravenous feeding of the child, the pediatrician contacted the police, who hospitalized the child and saved his life. As soon as the child was discharged from the hospital, Pointer took her children and fled to Puerto Rico. The FBI located her there several months later and arrested her. [7]

Pointer was charged and found guilty by jury of violation of California Penal Code sections 273 (felony child endangerment), and 278.5 (observance of child custody decree). She was sentenced to five years probation on the condition that she serve one year in county jail; participate in counseling; not be informed of the whereabouts of Jamal, her younger son, and have no unsupervised visits with him; have no child custody of her children, without prior court approval; and that she not conceive during the probationary period. [7]

The California Court of Appeal affirmed all conditions of the sentence, except for the last one, the prohibition to conceive. Pointer challenged this condition as an unconstitutional restriction of her fundamental rights to privacy and to procreate. [7]

The Court found the condition reasonable because the condition was related to the crime for which she was convicted; even so, it held that it infringed on the fundamental right of privacy protected by both the federal and California state constitutions. [7] The Court concluded that the condition prohibiting Pointer from procreating during her probationary period was overbroad and that other less restrictive alternatives were available to the trial judge. The case was remanded to the trial court for resentencing consistent with the Court's views.

George Deukmejian was the lead prosecutor in this important appeal before becoming Governor of California. [7]

Related Research Articles

Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort. Like the tort of abuse of process, its elements include (1) intentionally instituting and pursuing a legal action that is (2) brought without probable cause and (3) dismissed in favor of the victim of the malicious prosecution. In some jurisdictions, the term "malicious prosecution" denotes the wrongful initiation of criminal proceedings, while the term "malicious use of process" denotes the wrongful initiation of civil proceedings.

Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment prevented the conviction of Paul Robert Cohen for the crime of disturbing the peace by wearing a jacket displaying "Fuck the Draft" in the public corridors of a California courthouse.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of California</span> Highest judicial court in the U.S. state of California

The Supreme Court of California is the highest and final court of appeals in the courts of the U.S. state of California. It is headquartered in San Francisco at the Earl Warren Building, but it regularly holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sacramento. Its decisions are binding on all other California state courts. Since 1850, the court has issued many influential decisions in a variety of areas including torts, property, civil and constitutional rights, and criminal law.

Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal.4th 33 (2006), was a California Supreme Court case concerning online defamation. The case resolved a defamation claim brought by Stephen Barrett, Terry Polevoy, and attorney Christopher Grell against Ilena Rosenthal and several others. Barrett and others alleged that the defendants had republished libelous information about them on the internet. In a unanimous decision, the court held that Rosenthal was a "user of interactive computer services" and therefore immune from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

<i>Armstrong</i> cases Lawsuits to suppress disclosing Hubbard documents

Armstrong I–VIII were a lengthy series of lawsuits and other legal actions, primarily in the California state courts, arising from Gerald Armstrong's departure from the Church of Scientology (COS). The COS argued that Armstrong, a former COS employee, improperly took private papers belonging to the Church, while Armstrong argued that he took the papers to protect himself from improper disciplinary proceedings and that the Church did, in fact, discipline him improperly.

Legal malpractice is the term for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, or breach of contract by a lawyer during the provision of legal services that causes harm to a client.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of California</span> Overview of the law of the U.S. state of California

The law of California consists of several levels, including constitutional, statutory, and regulatory law, as well as case law. The California Codes form the general statutory law, and most state agency regulations are available in the California Code of Regulations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal enclave</span> Parcel of land which is within a state but under federal jurisdiction

In United States law, a federal enclave is a parcel of federal property within a state that is under the "Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States". In 1960, the year of the latest comprehensive inquiry, 7% of federal property had enclave status. Of the land with federal enclave status, 57% was under "concurrent" state jurisdiction. The remaining 43%, on which some state laws do not apply, was scattered almost at random throughout the United States. In 1960, there were about 5,000 enclaves, with about one million people living on them. While a comprehensive inquiry has not been performed since 1960, these statistics are likely much lower today, since many federal enclaves were military bases that have been closed and transferred out of federal ownership.

People v. Berry is a voluntary manslaughter case that is widely taught in American law schools for the appellate court's unusual interpretation of heat of passion doctrine. Although the defendant had time to "cool down" between his wife's verbal admission of infidelity and the killing, the California Supreme Court held that the provocation in this case was adequate to reduce a murder charge to manslaughter. The lower court had relied on the traditional definition of "adequate provocation" in its jury instructions. The California Supreme Court reversed Berry's murder conviction, while affirming Berry's conviction for assault using deadly force.

Berry v. Superior Court, 256 Cal. Rptr. 344 (1989), is an unofficially reported California Court of Appeal case. The case is relevant to the legal topic of criminal homicide and liability for unintentional killings.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California Public Records Act</span> Freedom-of-information law in California, US

The California Public Records Act was a law passed by the California State Legislature and signed by governor Ronald Reagan in 1968 requiring inspection or disclosure of governmental records to the public upon request, unless exempted by law.

Wrongful birth is a legal cause of action in some common law countries in which the parents of a congenitally diseased child claim that their doctor failed to properly warn of their risk of conceiving or giving birth to a child with serious genetic or congenital abnormalities. Thus, the plaintiffs claim, the defendant prevented them from making a truly informed decision as to whether or not to have the child. Wrongful birth is a type of medical malpractice tort. It is distinguished from wrongful life, in which the child sues the doctor.

<i>Landeros v. Flood</i> Court case in California

Landeros v. Flood was a 1976 court case in the state of California involving child abuse and alleged medical malpractice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States federal probation and supervised release</span> Concept from US criminal law

United States federal probation and supervised release are imposed at sentencing. The difference between probation and supervised release is that the former is imposed as a substitute for imprisonment, or in addition to home detention, while the latter is imposed in addition to imprisonment. Probation and supervised release are both administered by the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services System. Federal probation has existed since 1909, while supervised release has only existed since 1987, when it replaced federal parole as a means for imposing supervision following release from prison.

I. Nelson Rose is an internationally known author and public speaker, and is recognized as one of the world's leading experts on gambling and gaming law. He is currently a Professor Emeritus at Whittier College and a Visiting Professor at the University of Macau. Rose is best known for his internationally syndicated column and 1986 book, Gambling and the Law. To further educate and inform on the subject, he also maintains a comprehensive website, "Gambling and the Law," which can be found at www.gamblingandthelaw.com.

Taus v. Loftus, 151 P.3d 1185 was a Supreme Court of California case in which the court held that academic researchers' publication of information relating to a study by another researcher was newsworthy and subject to protection under the state's anti-SLAPP act. The court noted that the defendants had not disclosed the plaintiff's name and that Nicole Taus had disclosed it herself when she filed the case under her own name. The court did find that Taus had alleged a prima facie case that Loftus had misrepresented herself during the investigation and that this one count may proceed to trial.

Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 570 U.S. 595 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that land-use agencies imposing conditions on the issuance of development permits must comply with the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, even if the condition consists of a requirement to pay money, and even if the permit is denied for failure to agree to the condition. It was the first case in which monetary exactions were found to be unconstitutional conditions.

Sterilization law is the area of law, within reproductive rights, that gives a person the right to choose or refuse reproductive sterilization and governs when the government may limit this fundamental right. Sterilization law includes federal and state constitutional law, statutory law, administrative law, and common law. This article primarily focuses on laws concerning compulsory sterilization that have not been repealed or abrogated and are still good laws, in whole or in part, in each jurisdiction.

Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when police officers may make arrests or conduct temporary detentions based on information provided by anonymous tips. In 2008, police in California received a 911 call that a pickup truck was driving recklessly along a rural highway. Officers spotted a truck matching the description provided in the 911 call and followed the truck for five minutes, but did not observe any suspicious behavior. Nevertheless, officers conducted a traffic stop and discovered 30 pounds (14 kg) of marijuana in the truck. At trial, the occupants of the car argued that the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, because the tip was unreliable, and officers did not personally observe criminal activity. Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas held that the 911 call was reliable, and that officers need not personally observe criminal activity when acting upon information provided by an anonymous 911 call.

The California Racial Justice Act of 2020 bars the state from seeking or securing a criminal conviction or imposing a sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity or national origin. The Act, in part, allows a person to challenge their criminal case if there are statistical disparities in how people of different races are either charged, convicted or sentenced of crimes. The Act counters the effect of the widely criticized 1987 Supreme Court decision in McClesky v. Kemp, which rejected the use of statistical disparities in the application of the death penalty to prove the kind of intentional discrimination required for a constitutional violation. The Act, however, goes beyond countering McClesky to also allow a defendant to challenge their charge, conviction or sentence if a judge, attorney, law enforcement officer, expert witness, or juror exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of their race, ethnicity, or national origin or if one of those same actors used racially discriminatory language during the trial. The CRJA only applies prospectively to cases sentenced after January 1, 2021. The Act is codified in Sections 745, 1473 and 1473.7 of the California Penal Code.

References

  1. ↑ Phillip E. Johnson & Morgan Cloud, Criminal Law: Cases, Materials, and Text (7th ed. West Group 2002) p. 124.
  2. ↑ See, e.g., Prenatal Cocaine Exposure: How Should The Government Intervene?, 18 Am. J. Crim. L. 61, 86 (1990); "No New Babies?" Gender Inequality And Reproductive Control In The Criminal Justice And Prison Systems, 12 Am. U.J. Gender Soc. Pol'y & L. 391, 425+ (2004); Protecting Employees' Fetuses From Workplace Hazards: Johnson Controls Narrows The Options, 14 Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L. 142, 178+ (1993); When Crack Is The Only Choice: The Effect Of A Negative Right Of Privacy On Drug-Addicted Women, 15 Berkeley Women's L.J. 327, 337+ (2000); The Social Meaning Of The Norplant Condition: Constitutional Considerations Of Race, Class, And Gender, 9 Berkeley Women's L.J. 9, 57+ (1994); Beyond Survival: The Procreative Rights Of Women With Hiv, 14 B.C. Third World L.J. 1, 42 (1994); Compulsory Contraception As A Condition Of Probation: The Use And Abuse Of Norplant, 58 Brook. L. Rev. 979, 1019+ (1992); Involuntary Contraceptive Measures: Controlling Women At The Expense Of Human Rights, 10 B.U. Int'l L.J. 351, 383+ (1992); Control Of Childbearing By Hiv-Positive Women: Some Responses To Emerging Legal Policies, 41 Buff. L. Rev. 309, 449+ (1993); The Creation And Perpetuation Of The Mother/Body Myth: Judicial And Legislative Enlistment Of Norplant, 41 Buff. L. Rev. 703, 777+ (1993); Can A Pregnant Woman Morally Refuse Fetal Surgery?, 79 Cal. L. Rev. 499, 540+ (1991); Speaking For A Child: The Role Of Independent Counsel For Minors, 75 Cal. L. Rev. 681, 706 (1987); Making Pedophiles Take Their Medicine: California's Chemical Castration Law, 17 Buff. Pub. Int. L.J. 123, 175+ (1999); The Judge In The Delivery Room: The Emergence Of Court-Ordered Cesareans, 74 Cal. L. Rev. 1951, 2030+ (1986); Conditioning A Woman's Probation On Her Using Norplant: New Weapon Against Child Abuse Backfires, 17 Campbell L. Rev. 301, 315+ (1995); Prosecuting Teenage Parents Under Fornication Statutes: A Constitutionally Suspect Legal Solution To The Social Problem Of Teen Pregnancy, 5 Cardozo Women's L.J. 121, 151 (1998); Conditional Liberty: Restricting Procreation Of Convicted Child Abusers And Dead Beat Dads, 56 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 479, 490+ (2005); The Norplant Debate: Birth Control Or Woman Control?, 25 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 131, 169+ (1993); Unacceptable Collateral Damage: The Danger Of Probation Conditions Restricting The Right To Have Children, 38 Creighton L. Rev. 611, 660+ (2005); California Injects New Life Into An Old Idea: Taking A Shot At Recidivism, Chemical Castration, And The Constitution, 46 Emory L.J. 1285, 1326 (1997)
  3. ↑ See, e.g., People v. Zaring, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 263, 268+, 8 Cal.App.4th 362, 370+ (Cal.App. 5 Dist. Jul 22, 1992); People v. Sargent, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 835, 843+, 970 P.2d 409, 417+, 19 Cal.4th 1206, 1218+ (Cal. Feb 01, 1999); People v. Phillips, 214 Cal.Rptr. 417, 419+, 168 Cal.App.3d 642, 646+ (Cal.App. 4 Dist. May 22, 1985)
  4. ↑ State v. Mosburg, 768 P.2d 313, 315+, 13 Kan.App.2d 257, 259+ (Kan.App. Feb 03,1989)
  5. ↑ State v. Talty, 2003 WL 21396835,p.5, 2003-Ohio-3161, 3161+ (Ohio App. 9 Dist. Jun 18, 2003)
  6. ↑ State v. Oakley, 629 N.W.2d 200, 218+, 245 Wis.2d 447, 487+, 2001 WI 103, 103+ (Wis. Jul 10, 2001); State v. Volk, 514 N.W.2d 424, 424+, 181 Wis.2d 369, 369+ (Wis.App. Dec 08,1993)
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 People v. Pointer, 151Cal.App.3d1128 ( CA Court of Appeals 1984-02-17).

Text of People v. Pointer is available from:  CourtListener    Google Scholar    Justia    Leagle  

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.