Court
The people, the complainants and respondent, v. Joseph Thomas kurey, defendant and appellant. /> To Appeal California, SECOND DISTRICT AUDIT INSTANCE, Division Two
Mars 28th Decision entered February 2001

The trial court and a probation officer, the withdrawal of a defendant for violation of Pen. (Knowing possession of child pornography, that the case of a person under the age of 18 are involved personally or simulating sexual acts that) Code  § 311.11. A deputy sheriff searched Defendant had discovered the computer and video from a commercial website acquired, which the young men and women in sexual activity.

questions:

Whether a finding of violation of probation was unconstitutional, the evidence of “apparent age” should be limited to establishing the relevant true chronological age, what? the trial court should complainant objected to the testimony of Mrs. Ming sustainable if not sufficient evidence to prove that kurey had knowledge that the players under 18 years

were: observation and holding

for the constitutional process infirmity, presented the Court with the California law applies to the possession of material, production of which the use of a person under 18 years knowing that the case of a person under 18 years are personally involved or simulating sexual acts. ” California law requires a minor and therefore requires real knowledge of the minority by the author. There is no constitutional infirmity in section 311.11 is similar to Free Speech found.

As a proof of appearance, the Court finds that the evidence as proof of age was in the cases in California, received before looks. In People v. Montalvo court discussed the maxim of proof required the element of time to do justice, determines that it is not limited to records of actual age. Instead should in all cases, the evidence [physical phenomena] are accepted and considered for what it can in any case the value. In particular, can assess the physical appearance of an alleged slight to look his age. “

sufficient evidence of the accused knowledge of the minority of the Court in this case observed, the judge had his own observations of the video clips as well as the opinions of Mrs. Ming. This was clear evidence that the persons depicted were in fact under 18 years old to prove. To that kurey aware that the issue involved was a person under the age of 18 years personally, or simulate sexual acts, and more are woven through the evidence, the trial judge had the investigators of the statement, that the question of how old he thought the issues are on the video, appellant replied that he hoped they were 18, but “I think they are under 18 years. “The burden of proof in a probation revocation hearing is a preponderance of the evidence. Kurey own statement is sufficient to prove that he is the status of minority actors in video clips he had.

The order of the trial court is affirmed.

Note:

These summaries are provided by law SIRS Group. they represent the views of the informal practice of the judge’s opinion opinions. The original should be for their authoritative content

A

be consulted
probate law in California