Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Bejarano

December 21, 2009

STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
ANDREW NEIL BEJARANO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Helios (Joe) Hernandez, Judge. Affirmed. (Super.Ct.No. |RIF133366).

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ramirez P.J.

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

A jury convicted defendant, Andrew Bejarano, of failing to comply with his obligation to register annually as a convicted sex offender (Pen. Code, § 290.012).*fn1 In bifurcated proceedings, he admitted having suffered a prior conviction for which he served a prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). He was sentenced to prison for two years, four months, and appeals, claiming evidence was erroneously excluded, the jury was misinstructed, defense counsel at trial was incompetent and sentencing error occurred. We reject his contentions and affirm.

Facts

Defendant, as a convicted sex offender, had a duty to register within five days of his birthday each year. He fulfilled his duty 17 times, beginning in 1989 and ending when he moved to Moreno Valley*fn2 in April 2006, and he did not register on his birthdays during this 1989-2006 period only when he was incarcerated on other convictions. However, he failed to register within five days of his birthday in July 2006. On October 17, 2006, he came to the sheriff's office and filled out a request for an appointment to register. An appointment on October 24, 2006 was made for him, but he did not keep it. That same day, he was arrested for failure to register.

Defendant testified at trial that he found having to register unpleasant, but he knew he had a duty to register within five days of his birthday on July 18, 2006. However, he said that in February 2006, he found out that his father, with whom he was close, was very ill with liver sclerosis. Defendant claimed this news put him into a state of depression that grew as he watched his father deteriorate and finally die on June 21, 2006. During this time, he lost his job because he could not perform it properly.*fn3 However, he managed to register when he moved in April 2006. The depression continued after the father's death as defendant isolated himself from his family and his relationship with his fiancé suffered.*fn4 The medication he took for the depression did not affect him. At some point, which he did not specify, after his medication ran out, he began drinking. He knew he had to register within 5 days of his July 18, 2006 birthday, but he was severely depressed and just didn't care about life. On October 17, 2006, he drove himself to the sheriff's office and made an appointment to register because he knew it was his obligation to do so. His home was called with the time for the October 24 appointment, and defendant found out about it that morning. Defendant did not appear at the appointment because it was "an inconvenience." He called after the sheriff's office closed on that date and left a message, but deputies came to his home and arrested him. He was not surprised to see them. He said it was in the back of his mind all along that he had to register and it was not like he completely forgot to do so.

1. Limitation on Forensic Psychologist's Testimony

A forensic psychologist who examined defendant (and his fiancé) for about an hour and a half eighteen months after the crime testified that defendant was suffering from a severe depressive disorder at the time of the crime. She went on to opine that after his father's death in late June 2006, defendant was so disabled by his depression that he made wrong decisions. She said that when he lost his job shortly after his father's death, he "collapsed" and was so disabled that he did not apply for unemployment benefits.*fn5 She said he drank every day and passed out.*fn6 She added that the degree of disability defendant and his fiancé reported that he experienced was not common and was more severe than one would anticipate due to a loss. She attributed defendant's reporting to her the wrong date of his father's death on the confusion and inability to maintain an alert, focused attention that people in defendant's state experience and that his misreporting demonstrated that he was disabled and not functioning adequately and appropriately.*fn7 She repeated that he was depressed and disabled. She opined that the failure to register by someone who had registered for years, then experienced "something significant that caused them not to register," would be caused by the disability she testified defendant was suffering at the time. She testified that defendant told her he did not register in July because he just didn't care.

During direct examination of the psychologist, defense counsel asked her whether defendant did not register because he just did not care or because he forgot.*fn8 She began to answer the question as follows, "I think he was so disabled . . . ." Probably anticipating that she was about to say that defendant was so disabled that he was incapable of registering, the prosecutor objected. At a side bar, the psychologist made the following offer of proof, "I don't believe it was an issue of someone who just forgot. I think it was an issue of somebody who was so disabled that they just couldn't get it together to do it." She went on to elaborate with her opinion that defendant was so lethargic and depressed that nothing mattered anymore. The prosecutor asserted that the psychologist could not opine whether defendant, due to his severe depression, was able to form the requisite intent for failing to register. The trial court pointed out that the California Supreme Court had held that the "defense" that a person did not register because they forgot due to depression was not available unless the person's condition was severe, as with Alzheimer's or brain trauma, but not depression.*fn9 The trial court instructed the psychologist not to testify on the ultimate question whether defendant willfully failed to register-that the jury instructions required only that defendant be aware of his duty to register and that he failed to do it.

Defendant here takes issue with the trial court's ruling that the psychologist could not opine that he was so disabled psychologically that he could not register. However, he cites not one case and provides no analysis whatsoever that his asserted disability is a defense to his failure to register. Moreover, despite the ruling, the psychologist testified repeatedly that defendant was severely depressed and disabled, the latter, so much so that he was not functioning adequately and appropriately. Defendant made almost identical assertions on the stand. However, without law supporting his position that severe depression and/or psychological disability absolves one of the duty to register, despite the person's knowledge of that duty, all of this evidence was irrelevant. Neither below nor here did defendant present such authority.

Defendant was charged with willfully failing to register. The jury was instructed that the only state of mind defendant was required to have to be convicted of this offense was as follows, "Someone commits an act willfully when he . . . does it willingly or on purpose. The word `willfully' when applied to the intent with which an act is done or omitted, implies simply a purpose or willingness to commit the act or to make the omission referred to." The psychologist could not have taken her testimony further on this issue without stating that defendant's disability prevented him from acting willfully or on purpose in failing to register.*fn10 However, as the trial court found, such testimony would have been inadmissible because it would have invaded the province of the jury. (See People v. Frederick (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 400, 412.) It also would have violated the prohibition on an expert offering an opinion whether the defendant actually formed the requisite intent. (§ 29; People v. Vieira (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264, 292; People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 960, 961.)*fn11

More importantly, such a defense is simply unavailable for this crime. The failure to register is, as the trial court observed, a general intent crime. (People v. Johnson (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 67, 72.) "Evidence of defendant's mental condition is not admissible to prove the absence of general intent." (People v. Jefferson ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.