California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fourth Division
In re R.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
R.C., Defendant and Appellant.
from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No.
FJ55675 Benjamin R. Campos, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.
Offices of Esther R. Sorkin and Esther R. Sorkin under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant
Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney
General, Michael C. Keller and Esther P. Kim, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
case underscores the critical need to educate our youth about
the evils of misogyny and sexual bullying, and the virtues of
respect, kindness, and compassion. In late 2017, R.C., then a
high school student, used his cellphone to record a video of
a classmate, K.V. - without her knowledge or permission -
while they were engaged in consensual sex. K.V. repeatedly
asked him to delete the video. In response, R.C.
unsuccessfully tried to condition deletion of the video on
K.V.'s agreement to have sex with R.C.'s friend. The
juvenile court found R.C. had committed an unauthorized
invasion of privacy pursuant to Penal Code section 647,
subdivision (j)(3)(A). On appeal, R.C. contends there was
insufficient evidence the cellphone was
“concealed” as required by the statute. We
disagree and affirm. We publish to provide an authoritative
interpretation of “concealed” as used in section
647, subdivision (j)(3)(A).
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
People filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602
petition alleging then 17-year-old R.C. had committed two
misdemeanors: unauthorized invasion of privacy (§ 647,
subd. (j)(3), count 1) and distribution of obscene matter
(§ 311.2, subd. (a), count 2). R.C. denied the
People's sole witness at the jurisdiction hearing was
K.V., who testified she and R.C. were classmates, and she
believed they were friends. They agreed to have sexual
intercourse at the home of Emilio, another classmate who was
a friend of R.C. R.C. and K.V. arrived at the house, and
Emilio directed them to a bedroom. The couple entered and
closed the door. No one else was in the bedroom, and K.V.
believed they were in “a private circumstance.”
testified, “We started having sexual intercourse and
then there was a moment when [R.C] said, ‘I'm
recording, okay,' and then I turned around and the
camera, it was right in my face.” The camera was
pointed at K.V. K.V. had not agreed to being video-recorded
and told R.C. to stop. They stopped having sex. K.V. was
unable to convince R.C. either to surrender the cellphone or
to delete the video-recording.
then left the room with his phone. After K.V. dressed, she
followed him out and found him talking with Emilio. K.V.
repeatedly asked R.C. to delete the video, but he refused.
“And then after 3 attempts, ” K.V. testified,
R.C. finally said, “‘Okay, if you have sex with
Emilio.'” After K.V. declined, R.C. unsuccessfully
continued to attempt to blackmail her into performing various
sex acts with Emilio in exchange for deleting the video. K.V
testified: “He said, ‘Give him oral sex,' and
then I said, ‘No,' and I kept saying
‘No.”' When K.V. appealed to Emilio for help
convincing his friend to delete the recording, he responded,
“That's your problem.” R.C. and Emilio then
left the house.
that day, K.V. informed R.C. several times she would report
him if he did not delete the video. Eventually he told her he
had done so. But a month or two later, she heard comments
from other people saying “Oh, I saw in the video,
” or “I heard of a video, ” causing her to
report the incident.
cross-examination of K.V., the following exchange occurred:
counsel: So you testified that at one point during sexual
intercourse with [R.C.], he said, ‘I'm recording,
okay,' is that correct?
counsel: And at that point you looked and you saw he was