Jun 14, 2017

Sohum upskirting suspect jury trial continued; DA files more serious charges & alleges "sexual compulsion and the purpose of sexual gratification."

The defense attorney for Sohum upskirting suspect, David Nunez was expected to ask for a continuance this afternoon and Mr William DuBous did.

Since the last hearing, the People filed a motion to amend the complaint. According to Nunez's attorney in court, "these were more serious charges."

The first amended complaint has  three counts. Count 1 and 3 are PC 647 (j) (2). Count 2 is 647.6 (a) (1). The special allegation for Count 1 and 3 is that Nunez committed the alleged charges out of "sexual compulsion and the purpose of sexual gratification."

From Kraut Law Group: PC 647 (j) (2) "California Penal Code Section 647(j)(2) PC involves using a concealed device to record another person’s body or undergarments. A defendant would be guilty of this offense where the following elements are present:
  1. The defendant used a
    1. Concealed camcorder
    2. Motion picture camera
    3. OR any type of photographic camera
  2. To secretly videotape, film, photograph or record another identifiable person under or through the other person’s clothing for the purpose of viewing the body or undergarments of that other person
  3. Without the consent or knowledge of the other person
  4. With the intent of sexual arousal or invasion of privacy
  5. AND under circumstances in which the other person had a reasonable expectation of privacy."
From Walin and Klarich: PC 647.6 (a) (1): Under California Penal Code section 647.6 it is illegal to annoy or molest any minor under the age of 18 while motivated by an unnatural or abnormal sexual interest in the minor."

A plea of not guilty to all three counts and denial of special allegations was entered for Nunez.

In the original complaint, Nunez  was charged with two misdemeanors.Count 1 is  Unauthorized Invasion of Privacy and Count 2 is Annoy/Molest Child under 18. Count 1 is under the California "peeping tom" laws.

In Count 1, Nunez is alleged to have used a camera without consent to take pictures of Jane Doe #1 born in 1982. In Count 2, the alleged victim is Jane Doe #2, born in 1998.
Mr. Dubois appeared on Nunez's behalf, whose appearance for this hearing was not required due to the filing of a 977 waiver form.

People did not object to the continuance. Deputy District Attorney Christopher Yee was present today for the People in Courtroom 5 and he appeared in this case instead of Deputy DA Whitney Barnes.

Judge Christopher Wilson granted the defense's motion to continue as well as the People's motion to amend the complaint.

The jury trial for 6/19 was vacated. A trial setting date, requested by the defense was set for July 26 at 1:30 p.m.

Local counsel, Ms. Kathleen Bryson, who has appeared on the case, is unavailable in August and defense needs more time to prepare. She was also present today in court. According to the people, the alleged victim is unavailable to testify until December.

Previous post:


No comments:

Post a Comment