1 You each have a copy of the instructions
2 that I am now reading to you. You may take notes on
3 your copy, if you wish. An official copy of the
4 instructions will be provided to the jury for use
5 during deliberations. You should not make notes or
6 deface the official copy in any way.
7 If any rule, direction or idea is repeated
8 or stated in different ways in these instructions,
9 no emphasis is intended and you must not draw any
10 inference because of its repetition. Do not single
11 out any particular sentence or any individual point
12 or instruction and ignore the others. Consider the
13 instructions as a whole and each in light of all the
14 others.
15 The order in which the instructions are
16 given has no significance as to their relative
17 importance.
18 Statements made by the attorneys during the
19 trial are not evidence. However, if the attorneys
20 have stipulated or agreed to a fact, you must regard
21 that fact as proven as to the party or parties
22 making the stipulation.
23 If an objection was sustained to a question,
24 do not guess what the answer might have been. Do
25 not speculate as to the reason for the objection.
26 Do not assume to be true any insinuation
27 suggested by a question asked a witness. A question
28 is not evidence and may be considered only as it 12661
1 helps you to understand the answer. Do not consider
2 for any purpose any offer of evidence that was
3 rejected, or any evidence that was stricken by the
4 Court; treat it as though you had never heard of it.
5 You must decide all questions of fact in
6 this case from the evidence received in this trial
7 and not from any other source. When a witness has
8 testified through a Certified Court Interpreter, you
9 must accept the English interpretation of that
10 testimony even if you would have translated the
11 foreign language differently.
12 You must not independently investigate the
13 facts or the law or consider or discuss facts as to
14 which there is no evidence. This means, for
15 example, that you must not on your own visit the
16 scene, conduct experiments, or consult reference
17 works or persons for additional information.
18 You must not discuss this case with any
19 other person, including, but not limited to spouses,
20 spiritual leaders or advisors, or therapists, except
21 a fellow juror during deliberations when all 12 of
22 you are together in the jury room, and then only
23 after the case is submitted to you for your decision
24 and only when all 12 jurors are present in the jury
25 room.
26 Notes are only an aid to memory and should
27 not take precedence over recollection. A juror who
28 does not take notes should rely on his or her 12662
1 recollection of the evidence and not be influenced
2 by the fact that other jurors do take notes. Notes
3 are for the note-taker’s own personal use in
4 refreshing his or her recollection of the evidence.
5 Finally, should any discrepancy exist
6 between a juror’s recollection of the evidence and a
7 juror’s notes, or between one juror’s recollection
8 and that of another, you may request that the court
9 reporter read back the relevant testimony, which
10 must prevail.
11 The plaintiff in this matter is the People
12 of the State of California. The defendant is
13 Michael Joe Jackson.
14 The defendant is accused of having committed
15 the following crimes:
16 In Count 1, the crime alleged is conspiracy
17 to commit the crimes of extortion, false
18 imprisonment or child abduction;
19 The date of the alleged crime is between
20 February 1, 2003, and March 31, 2003;
21 The accusatory pleading also alleges the
22 following crimes to have been committed by the
23 defendant against Gavin Arvizo on or about and
24 between February 20th, 2003, and March 12th, 2003:
25 In Count 2, the crime alleged is lewd act
26 upon a child, the first alleged molestation
27 testified to by Gavin Arvizo;
28 In Count 2, the crime alleged is lewd act 12663
1 upon a child -- excuse me.
2 In Count 3, the crime alleged is lewd act
3 upon a child, the second alleged molestation
4 testified to by Gavin Arvizo;
5 In Count 4, the crime alleged is lewd act
6 upon a child, the first alleged molestation
7 witnessed by Star Arvizo;
8 In Count 5, the crime alleged is lewd act
9 upon a child, the second alleged molestation
10 witnessed by Star Arvizo;
11 In Count 6, the crime alleged is attempt to
12 commit a lewd act upon a child;
13 In Count 7, the crime alleged is
14 administering an intoxicating agent to assist in the
15 commission of a felony, as alleged in Count 2;
16 In Count 8, the crime alleged is
17 administering an intoxicating agent to assist in the
18 commission of a felony, as alleged in Count 3;
19 In Count 9, the crime alleged is
20 administering an intoxicating agent to assist in the
21 commission of a felony, as alleged in Count 4;
22 In Count 10, the crime alleged is
23 administering an intoxicating agent to assist in the
24 commission of a felony, as alleged in Count 5.
25 In addition to deciding if a defendant is
26 guilty of the crime or crimes with which he is
27 accused, you must also consider whether a defendant
28 is guilty of any crime that is lesser to that 12664
1 charged. You will be more fully instructed on this
2 subject later. However, in general, a defendant may
3 be found guilty of a lesser crime if the jury
4 unanimously concludes that the defendant, while not
5 guilty of the crime charged, is guilty of a lesser
6 crime.
7 In this case, the counts with lesser charges
8 are:
9 One: In the Counts 7 through 10, namely,
10 administering an intoxicating agent to assist in the
11 commission of a felony, the lesser crime is
12 furnishing alcohol to a minor, a misdemeanor.
13 The word “willfully” when applied to the
14 intent with which an act is done or omitted means
15 with a purpose or willingness to commit the act or
16 to make the omission in question. The word
17 “willfully” does not require any intent to violate
18 the law, or to injure another, or to acquire any
19 advantage.
20 The word “knowingly,” means with knowledge
21 of the existence of the facts in question.
22 Knowledge of the unlawfulness of any act or omission
23 is not required.
24 To consent to an act or transaction, a
25 person, one, must act freely and voluntarily and not
26 under the influence of threats, force or duress;
27 two, must have knowledge of the true nature of the
28 act or transaction involved; and, three, must 12665
1 possess the mental capacity to make an intelligent
2 choice whether or not to do something proposed by
3 another person.
4 Merely being passive does not amount to
5 consent. Consent requires a free will and positive
6 cooperation in act or attitude.
7 Evidence consists of testimony of witnesses,
8 writings, material objects, or anything presented to
9 the senses and offered to prove the existence or
10 nonexistence of a fact.
11 Evidence is either direct or circumstantial.
12 Direct evidence is evidence that directly
13 proves a fact. It is evidence which, by itself, if
14 found to be true, establishes that fact.
15 Circumstantial evidence is evidence that, if found
16 to be true, proves a fact from which an inference of
17 the existence of another fact may be drawn.
18 An inference is a deduction of fact that may
19 logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact
20 or group of facts established by the evidence.
21 It is not necessary that facts be proved by
22 direct evidence. They also may be proved by
23 circumstantial evidence or by a combination of
24 direct and circumstantial evidence. Both direct and
25 circumstantial evidence are acceptable as a means of
26 proof. Neither is entitled to any greater weight
27 than the other.
28 However, a finding of guilt as to any crime 12666
1 may not be based on circumstantial evidence unless
2 the proved circumstance are not only, one,
3 consistent with the theory that the defendant is
4 guilty of the crime, but, two, cannot be reconciled
5 with any other rational conclusion.
6 Further, each fact which is essential to
7 complete a set of circumstances necessary to
8 establish the defendant’s guilt must be proved
9 beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, before
10 an inference essential to establish guilt may be
11 found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt,
12 each fact or circumstance on which the inference
13 necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable
14 doubt.
15 Also, if the circumstantial evidence as to
16 any particular count permits two reasonable
17 interpretations, one of which points to the
18 defendant’s guilt and the other to his innocence,
19 you must adopt that interpretation that points to
20 the defendant’s innocence, and reject that
21 interpretation that points to his guilt.
22 If, on the other hand, one interpretation of
23 this evidence appears to you to be reasonable and
24 the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you
25 must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject
26 the unreasonable.
27 The specific intent or mental state with
28 which an act is done may be shown by the 12667
1 circumstances surrounding the commission of the act.
2 However, you may not find the defendant guilty of
3 the crimes charged unless the proved circumstances
4 are not only, one, consistent with the theory that
5 the defendant had the required specific intent or
6 mental state, but, two, cannot be reconciled with
7 any other rational conclusion.
8 Also, if the evidence as to any specific
9 intent or mental state permits two reasonable
10 interpretations, one of which points to the
11 existence of the specific intent or mental state and
12 the other to its absence, you must adopt that
13 interpretation which points to its absence. If, on
14 the other hand, one interpretation of the evidence
15 as to the specific intent or mental state appears to
16 you to be reasonable and the other interpretation to
17 be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable
18 interpretation and reject the unreasonable.
19 Certain evidence was admitted for a limited
20 purpose.
21 At the time this evidence was admitted, you
22 were instructed that it could not be considered by
23 you for any purpose other than the limited purpose
24 for which it was admitted.
25 Do not consider this evidence for any
26 purpose except the limited purpose for which it was
27 admitted.
28 You have been shown four different 12668
1 videotapes during the course of this proceeding:
2 One, “Living with Michael Jackson,” which has also
3 been referred to as the “Bashir video”; two, the
4 “outtakes video,” comprised of footage taken by
5 Hamid Moslehi, Mr. Jackson’s videographer; three,
6 the “rebuttal video,” made in response to the Bashir
7 video and including comments from the Arvizo family;
8 and, four, the Sheriff’s July 2003 interview with
9 Gavin Arvizo. These videos are offered for limited
10 purposes.
11 The video of “Living with Michael Jackson”
12 is not offered for the truth of anything said or
13 shown in the program, with the exception of certain
14 identified passages. You will receive additional
15 instruction with regard to these identified
16 passages. The rest of the video is hearsay and
17 cannot be considered by you to prove anything other
18 than the fact the program aired in February of 2003
19 and its likely impact, if any, on Mr. Jackson’s
20 state of mind.
21 You should not be biased, prejudiced or
22 influenced in any way by the content of the video or
23 its commercial packaging. Except for the limited
24 specific statements that will be identified in
25 People’s Exhibit 910, the remainder of the program
26 should only be considered for the fact that it aired
27 and its impact, if any, on Mr. Jackson.
28 The “outtakes video” was offered to provide 12669
1 context for the statements made in the Bashir video.
2 None of the statements in the outtakes video may be
3 considered for their truth, unless they are
4 identical to the identified passages you may
5 consider from the Bashir video.
6 The “rebuttal video” was offered by the
7 Defense to dispute the claim that Mr. Jackson or his
8 co-conspirators scripted the statements made by
9 members of the Arvizo family in that video. The
10 video was offered so that you could observe the
11 demeanor of the members of the Arvizo family and
12 determine whether their statements were scripted.
13 None of the statements made in the rebuttal video
14 may be considered for their truth.
15 The July 2003 interview of Gavin Arvizo was
16 offered to rebut the claim that Gavin Arvizo’s
17 responses had been coached or scripted. The
18 interview video was offered for the purpose of
19 evaluating Gavin Arvizo’s demeanor and assessing
20 whether his responses were coached or scripted.
21 None of the statements made in the interview video
22 by Gavin Arvizo or the interviewers may be
23 considered for their truth.
24 As I just told you, certain identified
25 passages from the video “Living with Michael
26 Jackson” have been offered for their truth as
27 admissions.
28 An admission is a statement made by the 12670
1 defendant which does not, by itself, acknowledge his
2 guilt of the crimes for which the defendant is on
3 trial, but which statement tends to prove his guilt
4 when considered with the rest of the evidence.
5 The statements that are being offered as
6 admissions from the video “Living with Michael
7 Jackson” will be identified for you as the People’s
8 Exhibit No. 910.
9 You are the exclusive judges as to whether
10 the defendant made an admission, and if so, whether
11 the statement is true in whole or in part.
12 Evidence of an oral admission of the
13 defendant not made in court should be viewed with
14 caution.
15 Neither side is required to call as
16 witnesses all persons who may have been present at
17 any of the events disclosed by the evidence or who
18 may appear to have some knowledge of these events.
19 Neither side is required to produce all objects or
20 documents mentioned or suggested by the evidence.
21 There has been evidence in this case
22 indicating that a person other than a defendant was
23 or may have been involved in the crime for which the
24 defendant is on trial.
25 There may be many reasons why that person is
26 not here on trial. Therefore, do not speculate or
27 guess as to why the other person is not being
28 prosecuted in this trial or whether he has been or 12671
1 will be prosecuted. Your sole duty is to decide
2 whether the People have proved the guilt of the
3 defendant on trial.
4 Evidence that at some other time a witness
5 made statements that are inconsistent or consistent
6 with his or her testimony in this trial may be
7 considered by you not only for the purpose of
8 testing the credibility of the witness, but also as
9 evidence of the truth of the facts as stated by the
10 witness on that former occasion.
11 If you believe a witness’s testimony that he
12 or she no longer remembers a certain event, that
13 testimony is inconsistent with a prior statement or
14 statements by him or her describing that event.
15 Every person who testifies under oath or
16 affirmation is a witness. You are the sole judges
17 of the believability of a witness and the weight to
18 be given the testimony of each witness.
19 In determining the believability of a
20 witness, you may consider anything that has a
21 tendency reasonably to prove or disprove the
22 truthfulness of the testimony of the witness,
23 including, but not limited to, any of the following:
24 The extent of the opportunity or ability of
25 the witness to see or hear or otherwise become aware
26 of any matter about which the witness has testified;
27 The ability of the witness to remember or to
28 communicate any matter about which the witness has 12672
1 testified;
2 The character and quality of that testimony;
3 The demeanor and manner of the witness while
4 testifying;
5 The existence or nonexistence of a bias,
6 interest, or other motive;
7 The existence or nonexistence of any fact
8 testified to by the witness;
9 The attitude of the witness toward this
10 action or toward the giving of testimony;
11 A statement previously made by the witness
12 that is consistent or inconsistent with his or her
13 testimony;
14 The character of the witness for honesty or
15 truthfulness or their opposites;
16 An admission by the witness of
17 truthfulness;
18 Past criminal conduct of a witness;
19 Whether the witness is testifying under a
20 grant of immunity.
21 Discrepancies in a witness’s testimony, or
22 between a witness’s testimony and that of other
23 witnesses, if there were any, do not necessarily
24 mean that any witness should be discredited.
25 Failure of recollection is common. Innocent
26 misrecollection is not uncommon. Two persons
27 witnessing an incident or a transaction often will
28 see or hear it differently. You should consider 12673
1 whether a discrepancy relates to an important matter
2 or only to something trivial.
3 A witness, who is willfully false in one
4 material part of his or her testimony, is to be
5 distrusted in others. You may reject the whole
6 testimony of a witness who willfully has testified
7 falsely as to a material point, unless, from all the
8 evidence, you believe the probability of truth
9 favors his or her testimony in other particulars.
10 You are not required to decide any issue of
11 fact in accordance with the testimony of a number of
12 witnesses, which does not convince you, as against
13 the testimony of a lesser number or other evidence
14 which you find more convincing. You may not
15 disregard the testimony of the greater number of
16 witnesses merely from caprice, whim or prejudice, or
17 from a desire to favor one side against the other.
18 You must not decide an issue by the simple process
19 of counting the number of witnesses who have
20 testified on the opposite sides. The final test is
21 not in the relative numbers of witnesses, but in the
22 convincing force of the evidence.
23 Evidence has been introduced for the purpose
24 of showing that a witness or witnesses engaged in
25 past criminal conduct. This evidence may be
26 considered by you only for the purpose of
27 determining the believability of that witness. The
28 fact that the witness engaged in past criminal 12674
1 conduct, if it is established, does not necessarily
2 destroy or impair a witness’s believability. It is
3 one of the circumstances that you may consider in
4 weighing the testimony of that witness.
5 When a witness refuses to testify to any
6 matter, relying on the constitutional privilege
7 against self-incrimination, you must not draw from
8 the exercise of this privilege any inference as to
9 the believability of the witness or whether the
10 defendant is guilty or not guilty or any other
11 matter at issue in this trial.
12 When a witness refuses to testify to any
13 matter, relying upon the exercise of a lawful
14 privilege, you must not draw from that fact any
15 inference as to the believability of the witness or
16 whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty or any
17 other matter at issue in this trial.
18 You should give the uncorroborated testimony
19 of a single witness whatever weight you think it
20 deserves. Testimony concerning any fact by one
21 witness which you believe, whose testimony about
22 that fact does not require corroboration, is
23 sufficient for the proof of that fact. You should
24 carefully review all the evidence upon which the
25 proof of that fact depends.
26 Evidence has been introduced for the purpose
27 of showing that the defendant committed crimes other
28 than that for which he is on trial. 12675
1 Except as you will otherwise be instructed,
2 this evidence, if believed, may be considered by you
3 only for the limited purpose of determining if it
4 tends to show:
5 A characteristic method, plan or scheme in
6 the commission of criminal acts similar to the
7 method, plan or scheme used in the commission of the
8 offense in this case which would further tend to
9 show the existence of the intent which is a
10 necessary element of the crime charged;
11 The existence of the intent which is a
12 necessary element of the crime charged;
13 A motive for the commission of the crime
14 charged;
15 For the limited purpose for which you may
16 consider such evidence, you must weigh it in the
17 same manner as you do all other evidence in this
18 case.
19 Evidence has been introduced for the purpose
20 of showing that the defendant engaged in a sexual
21 offense on one or more occasions other than that
22 charged in the case.
23 “Sexual offense” means a crime under the
24 laws of a state or of the United States that
25 involves:
26 Any conduct made criminal by Penal Code
27 Section 288, and that should be a sub (a), with
28 parentheses on the “a.” The elements of this crime 12676
1 is set forth elsewhere in these instructions.
2 If you find that the defendant committed a
3 prior sexual offense, you may not -- excuse me.
4 If you find that the defendant committed a
5 prior sexual offense, you may, but are not required
6 to, infer that the defendant had a disposition to
7 commit sexual offenses. If you find that the
8 defendant had this disposition, you may, but are not
9 required to, infer that he was likely to commit and
10 did commit the crime or crimes of which he is
11 accused.
12 However, if you find by a preponderance of
13 the evidence that the defendant committed a prior
14 sexual offense, or offenses, that is not sufficient
15 by itself to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he
16 committed the crimes charged.
17 If you determine an inference properly can
18 be drawn from this evidence, this inference is
19 simply one item for you to consider, along with all
20 other evidence, in determining whether the defendant
21 has been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of
22 the charged crime.
23 Within the meaning of the preceding
24 instructions, the prosecution has the burden of
25 proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a
26 defendant committed sexual offenses other than those
27 for which he is on trial.
28 You must not consider this evidence for any 12677
1 purpose unless you find by a preponderance of the
2 evidence that the defendant committed the other
3 sexual offenses.
4 If you find other crimes were committed by a
5 preponderance of the evidence, you are nevertheless
6 cautioned and reminded that before a defendant can
7 be found guilty of any crime charged in this trial,
8 the evidence as a whole must persuade you beyond a
9 reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of
10 that crime.
11 “Preponderance of the evidence” means
12 evidence that has more convincing force than that
13 opposed to it. If the evidence is so evenly
14 balanced that you are unable to find that the
15 evidence on either side of an issue preponderates,
16 your finding on that issue must be against the party
17 who had the burden of proving it.
18 You should consider all of the evidence
19 bearing upon every issue regardless of who produced
20 it.
21 Motive is not an element of the crime
22 charged and need not be shown. However, you may
23 consider motive or lack of motive as a circumstance
24 in this case. Presence of motive may tend to
25 establish the defendant is guilty. Absence of
26 motive may tend to show the defendant is not guilty.
27 A defendant in a criminal trial has a
28 constitutional right not to be compelled to testify. 12678
1 You must not draw any inference from the fact that a
2 defendant does not testify. Further, you must
3 neither discuss this matter nor permit it to enter
4 into your deliberations in any way.
5 In deciding whether or not to testify, the
6 defendant may choose to rely on the state of the
7 evidence and upon the failure, if any, of the People
8 to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every essential
9 element of the charge against him. No lack of
10 testimony on defendant’s part will make up for a
11 failure of proof by the People so as to support a
12 finding against him on any essential element.
13 An admission is a statement made by the
14 defendant which does not, by itself, acknowledge his
15 guilt of the crimes for which the defendant is on
16 trial, but which statement tends to prove his guilt
17 when considered with the rest of the evidence.
18 You are the exclusive judges as to whether
19 the defendant made an admission, and if so, whether
20 the statement is true in whole or in part.
21 Evidence of an oral admission of the
22 defendant not made in court should be viewed with
23 caution.
24 Evidence has been received from which you
25 may find that an oral statement of intent was made
26 by the defendant before the offense with which he is
27 charged was committed.
28 It is for you to decide whether the 12679
1 statement was made by the defendant.
2 Evidence of an oral statement ought to be
3 viewed with caution.
4 No person may be convicted of a criminal
5 offense unless there is some proof of each element
6 of the crime independent of any admission made by
7 him outside the trial.
8 The identity of the person who is alleged to
9 have committed a crime is not an element of the
10 crime. The identity may be established by an
11 admission.
12 Witnesses who have special knowledge, skill,
13 experience, training or education in a particular
14 subject have testified to certain opinions. This
15 type of witness is referred to as an expert witness.
16 In determining what weight to give to any opinion
17 expressed by an expert witness, you should consider
18 the qualifications and believability of the witness,
19 the facts or materials upon which each opinion is
20 based, and the reasons for each opinion.
21 An opinion is only as good as the facts and
22 reasons on which it is based. If you find that any
23 fact has not been proved, or has been disproved, you
24 must consider that in determining the value of the
25 opinion. Likewise, you must consider the strengths
26 and weaknesses of the reasons on which it is based.
27 You are not bound by an opinion. Give each
28 opinion the weight you find it deserves. You may 12680
1 disregard any opinion if you find it to be
2 unreasonable.
3 In determining the weight to be given to an
4 opinion expressed by any witness who did not testify
5 as an expert witness, you should consider his or her
6 believability, the extent of his or her opportunity
7 to perceive the matters upon which his or her
8 opinion is based and the reasons, if any, given for
9 it. You are not required to accept an opinion, but
10 should give it the weight, if any, to which you find
11 it entitled.
12 In examining an expert witness, counsel may
13 ask a hypothetical question. This is a question in
14 which the witness is asked to assume the truth of a
15 set of facts, and to give an opinion based on that
16 assumption.
17 In permitting this type of question, the
18 Court does not rule and does not necessarily find
19 that all of the assumed facts have been proved. It
20 only determines that those assumed facts are within
21 the possible range of the evidence. It is for you
22 to decide from the evidence whether or not the facts
23 assumed in a hypothetical question have been proved.
24 If you should decide that any assumption in a
25 question has not been proved, you are to determine
26 the effect of that failure of proof on the value and
27 weight of the expert opinion based on the assumed
28 facts. 12681
1 In resolving any conflict that may exist in
2 the testimony of expert witnesses, you should weigh
3 the opinion of one expert against that of another.
4 In doing this, you should consider the
5 qualifications and believability of each witness,
6 the reasons for each opinion and the matter upon
7 which it is based.
8 A defendant in a criminal action is presumed
9 to be innocent until the contrary is proved, and in
10 case of a reasonable doubt whether his guilt is
11 satisfactorily shown, he is entitled to a verdict of
12 not guilty. This presumption places upon the People
13 the burden of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable
14 doubt.
15 “Reasonable doubt” is defined as follows:
16 It is not a mere possible doubt, because everything
17 relating to human affairs is open to some possible
18 or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case
19 which, after the entire comparison and consideration
20 of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors
21 in that condition that they cannot say they feel an
22 abiding conviction of the truth of the charge.
23 In the crimes charged in Counts 1 through 10,
24 there must exist a union or joint operation of act
25 or conduct and a certain specific intent in the mind
26 of the perpetrator. Unless this specific intent
27 exists, the crime to which it relates is not
28 committed. 12682
1 The specific intent required is included in
2 the definitions of the crimes set forth elsewhere in
3 these instructions.
4 The crime of conspiracy, as alleged in Count 1,
5 requires the specific intent to agree to commit a
6 crime and a further specific intent to commit that
7 crime.
8 The crime of lewd act with a child under
9 14 years of age, as alleged in Counts 2, 3, 4 and 5,
10 requires the specific intent to arouse, appeal to,
11 or gratify the lusts or passions or sexual desires
12 of the perpetrator or the child.
13 The crime of attempted lewd act with a child
14 under 14 years of age, as alleged in Count 6,
15 requires the specific intent to commit a lewd act
16 with a child under 14 years of age and the specific
17 intent to arouse, appeal to, or gratify the lusts or
18 passions or sexual desires of the perpetrator or the
19 child.
20 The crime of administering an intoxicating
21 agent to another, as alleged in Count 7, 8, 9 and
22 10, requires the specific intent thereby to enable
23 or assist the perpetrator to commit a felony.
24 In the crimes charged in Counts 1 through 10,
25 or lesser crimes thereto, there must exist a union
26 or joint operation of act or conduct and a certain
27 mental state in the mind of the perpetrator. Unless
28 this mental state exists, the crime to which it 12683
1 relates is not committed.
2 The mental states required are included in
3 the definitions of the crimes set forth elsewhere in
4 these instructions.
5 Defendant is accused in Count 1 of having
6 committed the crime of conspiracy, a violation of
7 Section 182 of the Penal Code, on or about a period
8 of time between February 1, 2003, and March 31,
9 2003.
10 Defendant is accused in Counts 2 through 5
11 of having committed the crime of lewd act upon a
12 child, a violation of Penal Code Section 288,
13 Subdivision (a), on or about a period of time
14 between February 20, 2003, and March 12, 2003.
15 Defendant is accused in Count 6 of having
16 attempted to commit the crime of lewd act upon a
17 child, a violation of Penal Code Section 664 and
18 288, Subdivision (a), on or about a period of time
19 between February 20, 2003, and March 12th, 2003.
20 Defendant is accused in Count 7 through 10
21 of administering an intoxicating agent to assist in
22 the commission of a felony, in violation of Penal
23 Code Section 222, on or about a period of time
24 between February 20, 2003, and March 12th, 2003.
25 In order to find the defendant guilty of the
26 crime charged against him in a particular count, it
27 is necessary for the prosecution to prove beyond a
28 reasonable doubt the commission of a specific act or 12684
1 acts constituting that crime within the period
2 alleged.
3 And, in order to find the defendant guilty
4 of the crime charged against him in a particular
5 count, you must unanimously agree upon the
6 commission of the same specific act or acts
7 constituting that crime within the period alleged.
8 It is not necessary that the particular act
9 or acts committed, so agreed upon, be stated in the
10 verdict.
11 An attempt to commit a crime consists of two
12 elements; namely, a specific intent to commit the
13 crime, and a direct but ineffectual act done toward
14 its commission.
15 In determining whether this act was done, it
16 is necessary to distinguish between mere preparation
17 on the one hand, and the actual commencement of the
18 doing of the criminal deed on the other. Mere
19 preparation, which may consist of planning the
20 offense or of devising, obtaining or arranging the
21 means for its commission, is not sufficient to
22 constitute an attempt. However, acts of a person
23 who intends to commit a crime will constitute an
24 attempt where those acts clearly indicate a certain,
25 unambiguous intent to commit that specific crime.
26 These acts must be an immediate step in the present
27 execution of the criminal design, the progress of
28 which would be completed unless interrupted by some 12685
1 circumstance not intended in the original design.
2 You know, I read to my wife at night so
3 she’ll go to sleep. I’m not having that effect
4 here, huh?
5 (Laughter.)
6 THE COURT: Okay. A conspiracy, as charged
7 in Count 1 of the Indictment, is an agreement
8 entered into between two or more persons with the
9 specific intent to agree to commit the crime of
10 child abduction, false imprisonment, or extortion,
11 and with the further specific intent to commit that
12 crime or crimes, followed by an overt act committed
13 in this state by one or more of the parties for the
14 purpose of accomplishing the object of the
15 agreement.
16 Conspiracy is a crime.
17 In order to find a defendant guilty of
18 conspiracy, in addition to proof of the unlawful
19 agreement and specific intent, there must be proof
20 of the commission of at least one of the acts
21 alleged in the Indictment to be an overt act and
22 that the act found to have been committed was an
23 overt act. It is not necessary to the guilt of the
24 defendant that he personally committed an overt act
25 if he was one of the conspirators when the alleged
26 overt act was committed.
27 The term “overt act” means any step taken or
28 act committed by one or more of the conspirators 12686
1 which goes beyond mere planning or agreement to
2 commit a crime and which step or act is done in
3 furtherance of the accomplishment of the object of
4 the conspiracy.
5 To be an “overt act,” the step taken or act
6 committed need not, in and of itself, constitute the
7 crime or even an attempt to commit the crime which
8 is the ultimate object of the conspiracy. Nor is it
9 required that the step or act, in and of itself, be
10 criminal or an unlawful act.
11 Each member of a criminal conspiracy is
12 liable for each act and bound by each declaration of
13 every other member of the conspiracy if that act or
14 declaration is in furtherance of the object of the
15 conspiracy.
16 The act of one conspirator pursuant to or in
17 furtherance of the common design of the conspiracy
18 is the act of all conspirators.
19 A member of a conspiracy is not only guilty
20 of the particular crime that to his knowledge his
21 confederates agreed to and did commit, but is also
22 liable for the natural and probable consequences of
23 any crime or act of a co-conspirator to further the
24 object of the conspiracy, even though that crime or
25 act was not intended as a part of the agreed-upon
26 objective and even though he was not present at the
27 time of the commission of that crime or act.
28 You must determine whether the defendant is 12687
1 guilty as a member of a conspiracy to commit the
2 originally agreed-upon crime or crimes, and, if so,
3 whether the crimes alleged in Count 1 was
4 perpetrated by co-conspirators in furtherance of
5 that conspiracy and was a natural and probable
6 consequence of the agreed-upon criminal objective of
7 that conspiracy.
8 In determining whether a consequence is
9 “natural and probable,” you must apply an objective
10 test based on what the defendant actually
11 intended -- excuse me.
12 In determining whether a consequence is
13 “natural and probable,” you must apply an objective
14 test based not on what the defendant actually
15 intended, but on what a person of reasonable and
16 ordinary prudence would have expected would be
17 likely to occur. The issue is to be decided in
18 light of all of the circumstances surrounding the
19 incident. A “natural consequence” is one which is
20 within the normal range of outcomes that may be
21 reasonably expected to occur if nothing unusual has
22 intervened. “Probable” means likely to happen.
23 The formation and existence of a conspiracy
24 may be inferred from all circumstances tending to
25 show that -- the common intent and may be proved in
26 the same way as any other fact may be proved, either
27 by direct testimony of the fact or by circumstantial
28 evidence, or by both direct and circumstantial 12688
1 evidence. It is not necessary to show a meeting of
2 the alleged conspirators or the making of an express
3 or formal agreement.
4 Evidence that a person was in the company of
5 or associated with one or more other persons alleged
6 or proved to have been members of a conspiracy is
7 not, in itself, sufficient to prove that person was
8 a member of the alleged conspiracy.
9 It is not a defense to the crime of
10 conspiracy that an alleged conspirator did not know
11 all the other conspirators. The members of a
12 conspiracy may be widely separated geographically,
13 and yet may be in agreement on a criminal design and
14 may act in concert in pursuit of that design. The
15 adoption by a person of the criminal design and
16 criminal intent entertained in common by others and
17 of its object and purposes is all that is necessary
18 to make that person a co-conspirator when the
19 required elements of a conspiracy are present.
20 Where a conspirator commits an act or makes
21 a declaration which is neither in furtherance of the
22 object of the conspiracy nor the natural and
23 probable consequence of an attempt to attain that
24 object, he alone is responsible for and bound by
25 that act or declaration, and no criminal
26 responsibility therefor attaches to any of his
27 confederates.
28 The act or declaration of a person who is 12689
1 not a member of a conspiracy is not binding upon the
2 members of the conspiracy, even if the act or
3 declaration tended to promote the object of the
4 conspiracy.
5 Evidence of the commission of an act which
6 furthered the purpose of an alleged conspiracy is
7 not, in itself, sufficient to prove that the person
8 committing the act was a member of the alleged
9 conspiracy.
10 Every person who joins a conspiracy after
11 its formation is liable for and bound by the acts
12 committed and declarations made by other members in
13 pursuance and furtherance of the conspiracy during
14 the time that he is a member of the conspiracy.
15 A person who joins a conspiracy after its
16 formation is not liable or bound by the acts of the
17 co-conspirators or for any crime committed by the
18 co-conspirators before that person joins and becomes
19 a member of the conspiracy.
20 Evidence of any acts done or declarations
21 made by other conspirators prior to the time that
22 person becomes a member of the conspiracy may be
23 considered by you in determining the nature,
24 objectives and purposes of the conspiracy, but for
25 no other purpose.
26 A member of a conspiracy is liable for the
27 acts and declarations of his co-conspirators until
28 he effectively withdraws from the conspiracy or the 12690
1 conspiracy has terminated.
2 In order to effectively withdraw from a
3 conspiracy, there must be an affirmative and
4 good-faith rejection or repudiation of the
5 conspiracy which must be communicated to the other
6 conspirators of whom he has knowledge.
7 If a member of a conspiracy has effectively
8 withdrawn from the conspiracy, he is not thereafter
9 liable for any act of the co-conspirators committed
10 after his withdrawal from the conspiracy, but he is
11 not relieved of responsibility for the acts of his
12 co-conspirators committed while he was a member.
13 No act or declaration of a conspirator
14 committed or made after the conspiracy has been
15 terminated is binding upon co-conspirators, and they
16 are not criminally liable for that act.
17 The defendant in this case is entitled to,
18 and must receive, your determination whether he was
19 a member of the alleged conspiracy. You must
20 determine whether he was a conspirator by deciding
21 whether he willfully, intentionally and knowingly
22 joined with any other or others in the alleged
23 conspiracy.
24 Before you may return a guilty verdict of
25 the crime of conspiracy as charged in Count 1, you
26 must unanimously agree and find beyond a reasonable
27 doubt that, one, there was a conspiracy to commit
28 more -- excuse me -- there was a conspiracy to 12691
1 commit one or more of the crimes of extortion, child
2 abuse and false imprisonment; and two, the defendant
3 willfully, intentionally and knowingly joined with
4 any other or others in the alleged conspiracy.
5 You must also unanimously agree and find
6 beyond a reasonable doubt that an overt act was
7 committed by one of the conspirators. You are not
8 required to unanimously agree as to who committed an
9 overt act, or which overt act was committed, so long
10 as each of you finds beyond a reasonable doubt that
11 one of the conspirators committed one of the acts
12 alleged in the Indictment to be overt acts.
13 In this case the defendant is charged with
14 conspiracy to commit the following public crimes:
15 One, a violation of Penal Code Section 278,
16 child abduction, a felony;
17 Two, a violation of Penal Code Section 236,
18 false imprisonment, a felony;
19 Three, a violation of Penal Code Section
20 518, extortion, a felony.
21 It is alleged that the following acts were
22 committed in this state by one or more of the
23 defendants and were overt acts and committed for the
24 purpose of furthering the object of the conspiracy.
25 Overt Act No. 1: On or about February 4th,
26 2003, Michael Joe Jackson told Janet Arvizo that the
27 lives of her children, Gavin, Star and Davellin
28 Arvizo, were in danger due to the recent broadcast 12692
1 on British television of the documentary “Living
2 with Michael Jackson,” in which Gavin Arvizo appears
3 with Michael Joe Jackson. Michael Joe Jackson did
4 tell Janet Arvizo that she and her three children
5 would be flown to Miami to participate in a press
6 conference, which press conference never took place.
7 Overt Act No. 2: On and between February
8 4th, 2003, and February 5th, 2003, the documentary
9 “Living with Michael Jackson,” in which Gavin Arvizo
10 appears, was broadcast in the United States.
11 Michael Joe Jackson did personally prevent the
12 Arvizo family from viewing the program while at the
13 Turnberry Resort Hotel in Miami, Florida.
14 Overt Act No. 3: On and between February
15 7th, 2003, and February 8th, 2003, Michael Joe
16 Jackson did return the Arvizo family to Santa
17 Barbara in a private jet. On the flight, Michael
18 Joe Jackson did sit with Gavin Arvizo and did give
19 him an alcoholic beverage, concealed in a soft drink
20 can. Michael Joe Jackson did then present Gavin
21 Arvizo with a wristwatch. Michael Joe Jackson did
22 tell Gavin Arvizo that the watch was worth $75,000.
23 Michael Joe Jackson did tell Gavin Arvizo not to
24 tell anyone about them drinking alcoholic beverages
25 together.
26 Overt Act No. 4: On or about February 8th,
27 2003, Michael Joe Jackson brought the Arvizo family
28 to Jackson’s Neverland Ranch, where Gavin, Star, 12693
1 Davellin and Janet Arvizo remained for approximately
2 five days.
3 Overt Act No. 5: On and between February 6,
4 2003, and February 12th, 2003, in both Miami,
5 Florida, and at Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara
6 County, Ronald Konitzer and Dieter Weizner did tell
7 Janet Arvizo that there were death threats made
8 against her and her children by unknown individuals.
9 They did further tell Janet Arvizo that the only way
10 to assure the safety of her family was for the
11 Arvizos to participate in the making of a “rebuttal”
12 video favorable to Michael Joe Jackson.
13 Overt Act No. 6: On and between February
14 12th, 2003, and February 15th, 2003, after the
15 Arvizo family had departed Neverland Ranch in the
16 night, Frank Cascio, aka Frank Tyson, did telephone
17 Janet Arvizo and urge her to return with her
18 children to Neverland Ranch and did say, “I know
19 Michael would love for you to come back to the
20 ranch, for the safety of all concerned,” and “Now is
21 not the right time to be out there alone,” and
22 “Never turn your back on Michael,” and “Michael
23 wants to see you and the family,” and “You need to
24 go back to the ranch and see Michael, because he is
25 very concerned,” and “Even staying another night
26 alone is not safe.”
27 Frank Cascio, aka Frank Tyson, did tell
28 Janet Arvizo that, “We would love for you to go on 12694
1 tape and just say something beautiful about
2 Michael.” Frank Cascio did assure Janet Arvizo and
3 Gavin Arvizo that Ronald Konitzer and Dieter Weizner
4 would no longer be present at the ranch if they
5 returned. He did state, “They are not there; I know
6 that for a fact.”
7 Overt Act No. 7: On and between February
8 2003 and March 2003, at Neverland Ranch, Frank
9 Cascio, aka Frank Tyson, did threaten Star Arvizo
10 that Cascio did have ways to make Star Arvizo’s
11 grandparents “disappear.” Frank Cascio did tell
12 Gavin Arvizo, “I could have your mother killed.”
13 Overt Act No. 8: On or about February 14th,
14 2003, and February 15th, 2003, Michael Joe Jackson’s
15 personal chauffeur, Gary Hearn, did drive to Janet
16 Arvizo’s Los Angeles residence and did transport her
17 and her children back to Neverland Ranch in Santa
18 Barbara County.
19 Overt Act No. 9: On and between February
20 14th, 2003, and February 15th, 2003, upon the Arvizo
21 family’s return to Neverland Ranch, Ronald Konitzer
22 and Dieter Weizner were, in fact, present; whereupon
23 Janet Arvizo asked to leave with her children.
24 Ronald Konitzer and Dieter Weizner did tell Janet
25 Arvizo that she was free to depart; however, her
26 children must remain at the ranch.
27 Overt Act No. 10: During the month of
28 February 2003, in Santa Barbara County, California, 12695
1 Michael Joe Jackson’s personal security staff was
2 directed in writing not to allow Gavin Arvizo to
3 leave Neverland Ranch.
4 Overt Act No. 11: During the month of
5 February 2003, Frederic Marc Schaffel, Christian
6 Robinson and an unknown attorney did prepare a
7 script of questions to be asked of the Arvizo family
8 during the filming of the “rebuttal” video by Hamid
9 Moslehi.
10 Gee. I need a drink - of water.
11 I’ll try that one again.
12 During the month of February 2003, Frederic
13 Marc Schaffel, Christian Robinson, and an unknown
14 attorney did prepare a script of questions to be
15 asked of the Arvizo family during the filming of the
16 “rebuttal” video by Hamid Moslehi, Michael Joe
17 Jackson’s personal videographer.
18 Overt Act No. 12: On or about February
19 19th, 2003, the Arvizo children were transported by
20 Hamid Moslehi from Neverland Ranch to Moslehi’s home
21 in the San Fernando Valley, and on the same date,
22 Vinnie Amen did transport Janet Arvizo to Hamid
23 Moslehi’s residence for the filming of the
24 “rebuttal” video.
25 Overt Act No. 13: On or about February
26 19th, 2003, and February 20th, 2003, in Los Angeles
27 County, between 11 p.m. and 1 a.m., the employees
28 and associates of Michael Joe Jackson did tape the 12696
1 “rebuttal” video, an interview of the Arvizo family,
2 in the presence of Vinnie Amen and Bradley Miller, a
3 licensed private investigator. During the taping,
4 previously scripted questions were asked of the
5 Arvizo family.
6 Overt Act No. 14: On or about February
7 20th, 2003, Vinnie Amen did transport Janet Arvizo
8 to Norwalk, in Los Angeles County, to obtain birth
9 certificates of the Arvizo family for the purpose of
10 obtaining passports and visas to travel to Brazil.
11 Overt Act No. 15: On and between February
12 25th, 2003, and March 2nd, 2003, Vinnie Amen did
13 take the Arvizo family from Neverland Ranch to the
14 Country Inn & Suites in Calabasas, Los Angeles
15 County. Vinnie Amen did transport Janet Arvizo to
16 public offices in Los Angeles County where passports
17 showing the destinations of Italy and France and
18 visas for the entrance to Brazil for the Arvizo
19 family were obtained. Frederic Marc Schaffel,
20 business partner of Michael Joe Jackson and
21 president of Neverland Valley Entertainment, did pay
22 expenses in connection with this activity.
23 Overt Act No. 16: On or about February 25,
24 2003, Frederic Marc Schaffel did make airline
25 reservations for the Arvizo family to travel to
26 Brazil on March 3rd, 2003.
27 Overt Act No. 17: On or about February
28 26th, 2003, Frederic Marc Schaffel paid Frank 12697
1 Cascio, aka Frank Tyson, $1,000 in connection with
2 “vacation” expenses for the Arvizo family.
3 Overt Act No. 18: On or about February
4 27th, 2003, Frederic Marc Schaffel did pay Vinnie
5 Amen the sum of $500 cash for costs related to the
6 Brazilian visas of the Arvizo family.
7 Overt Act No. 19: On and between February
8 2003 and March 2003, at the Neverland Ranch, Michael
9 Joe Jackson did have Gavin Arvizo sleep in his
10 bedroom and in his bed.
11 Overt Act No. 20: On and between February
12 2003 and March 2003, at Neverland Ranch, Michael Joe
13 Jackson did house Janet and Davellin Arvizo in a
14 guest cottage on Neverland Ranch, where Janet and
15 Davellin Arvizo slept.
16 Overt Act No. 21: On and between February
17 2003 and March 2003, at Neverland Ranch, Michael Joe
18 Jackson did show sexually explicit materials to
19 Gavin and Star Arvizo.
20 Overt Act No. 22: On and between February
21 2003 and March 2003, at Neverland Ranch, Michael Joe
22 Jackson did drink alcoholic beverages in the
23 presence of Gavin and Star Arvizo and provided
24 alcoholic beverages to them.
25 Overt Act No. 23: On and between February
26 2003 and March 2003, Michael Joe Jackson did monitor
27 and maintain control over the activities at
28 Neverland Ranch by means of multiple interior door 12698
1 locks, proximity sensor alarm devices, and a keypad
2 combination lock, as well as video and telephone
3 surveillance equipment. Michael Joe Jackson did
4 personally monitor telephone conversations of Janet
5 Arvizo without her knowledge or permission.
6 Overt Act No. 24: On or about March 1,
7 2003, Vinnie Amen did pay the rent on the residence
8 of the Arvizo family in Los Angeles County and moved
9 their belongings into storage.
10 Overt Act No. 25: On or about March 6th,
11 2003, Vinnie Amen did go to John Burroughs Middle
12 School in Los Angeles County and he did withdraw
13 Gavin and Star Arvizo from their enrollment there,
14 telling school authorities that the children were
15 relocating to Phoenix, Arizona.
16 Overt Act No. 26: On or about March 9th,
17 2003, Michael Joe Jackson was told by Gavin Arvizo
18 that Gavin Arvizo had a medical appointment the
19 following day, at which time he was to give the
20 medical staff a 24-hour-long urine collection
21 specimen for laboratory analysis. Michael Joe
22 Jackson, in Santa Barbara County, did tell Gavin
23 Arvizo to cancel the appointment, because the sample
24 would reveal that Gavin Arvizo had been consuming
25 alcoholic beverages while staying at Neverland
26 Ranch.
27 On or about March 10th, 2003, in Los Angeles
28 County, after Janet Arvizo refused to cancel the 12699
1 medical appointment and while on the way to the
2 medical appointment, Vinnie Amen did destroy most of
3 Gavin Arvizo’s collected urine specimen, intended
4 for laboratory analysis in connection with Gavin
5 Arvizo’s follow-up treatment for the disease of
6 cancer.
7 Overt Act No. 27: On and between February
8 2003 and March 2003, in Los Angeles County, and as
9 revealed by a surveillance videotape located on
10 November 18th, 2003, in the office of Private
11 Investigator Bradley Miller, an unknown
12 co-conspirator conducted video surveillance of Gavin
13 Arvizo and various members of Gavin Arvizo’s family,
14 including his grandmother and grandfather, his
15 mother, his mother’s boyfriend, his brother and his
16 sister, at and near their respective residences and
17 elsewhere.
18 Overt Act No. 28: On or about March 31st,
19 2003, Michael Joe Jackson did direct Frederic Marc
20 Schaffel to pay Frank Cascio, aka Frank Tyson, the
21 sum of one million dollars from “Petty Cash” of
22 Neverland Valley Entertainment on behalf of Michael
23 Joe Jackson.
24 Evidence of a statement made by one alleged
25 conspirator other than at this trial shall not be
26 considered by you as against another alleged
27 conspirator unless you determine by a preponderance
28 of the evidence: 12700
1 One, that from other independent evidence
2 that at the time the statement was made a conspiracy
3 to commit a crime existed;
4 Two, that the statement was made while the
5 person making the statement was participating in the
6 conspiracy and that the person against whom it was
7 offered was participating in the conspiracy before
8 or during that time;
9 And, three, that that statement was made in
10 furtherance of the objective of the conspiracy.
11 The word “statement” as used in this
12 instruction includes any oral or written verbal
13 expression or the nonverbal conduct of a person
14 intended by that person as a substitute for oral or
15 written verbal expression.
16 Defendant is charged in Count 1 with
17 conspiracy to commit the crime of extortion, in
18 violation of Penal Code Section 518, the crime of
19 child abduction, in violation of Penal Code Section
20 278, and the crime of false imprisonment, in
21 violation of Penal Code Section 236.
22 In order to find the defendant guilty of the
23 crime of conspiracy, you must find beyond a
24 reasonable doubt that the defendant conspired to
25 commit one or more of the crimes, and you also must
26 unanimously agree as to which particular crime or
27 crimes he conspired to commit.
28 If you find the defendant guilty of 12701
1 conspiracy, you will then include a finding on the
2 question as to which such alleged crimes you
3 unanimously agree the defendant conspired to commit.
4 A form will be supplied to you for that purpose.
5 Defendant is accused in Count 1 of having
6 conspired to commit the crime of false imprisonment
7 by violence or menace, a violation of Section 236 of
8 the Penal Code.
9 Every person who, by violence or menace,
10 violates the liberty of another person by
11 intentionally and unlawfully restraining, confining
12 or detaining that person and compelling that person
13 to stay or go somewhere without his or her consent
14 is guilty of the crime of false imprisonment by
15 violence or menace, in violation of Penal Code
16 Section 236.
17 “Violence” means the exercise of physical
18 force used to restrain over and above the force
19 reasonably necessary to effect the restraint.
20 “Menace” means a threat of harm, express or
21 implied, by word or act.
22 False imprisonment does not require that
23 there be confinement in a jail or prison.
24 In order to prove this crime, each of the
25 following elements must be proved:
26 One, a person intentionally and unlawfully
27 restrained, confined, or detained another person,
28 compelling him or her to stay or go somewhere; 12702
1 Two, the other person did not consent to the
2 restraint, confinement, or detention;
3 And, three, the restraint, confinement or
4 detention was accomplished by violence or menace.
5 In the crime of false imprisonment, there
6 must exist a union or joint operation of act or
7 conduct and general criminal intent. General
8 criminal intent does not require an intent to
9 violate the law. When a person intentionally does
10 that which the law declares to be a crime, he is
11 acting with general criminal intent, even though he
12 may not know that his act or conduct is unlawful.
13 However, before a person can be convicted
14 of conspiracy to commit false imprisonment, the
15 specific intents to commit conspiracy must be
16 proved.
17 Defendant is accused in Count 1 of having
18 conspired to commit the crime of child abduction, a
19 violation of Section 278 of the Penal Code.
20 Every person, not having a right of custody,
21 who maliciously takes and entices away, keeps,
22 withholds or conceals any child with the specific
23 intent to detain or conceal the child from a lawful
24 custodian is guilty of the crime of child abduction,
25 in violation of Penal Code Section 278.
26 In order to prove this crime, each of the
27 following elements must be proved:
28 One, a person took, enticed away, kept, 12703
1 withheld, or concealed a child;
2 Two, that person did not have a right of
3 custody of the child;
4 Three, that person acted maliciously;
5 And four, with the specific intent to detain
6 or conceal the child from a lawful custodian.
7 As used in the crime of child abduction:
8 “Child” means a person under the age of 18.
9 “Maliciously” means with intent to vex,
10 annoy or injure another person, or to do a wrongful
11 act.
12 “Fraudulently” includes all surprise, trick,
13 cunning, and unfair ways by which one person
14 deceives or attempts to deceive another.
15 “Keeps” or “withholds” means retains
16 physical possession of a child whether or not the
17 child resists or objects.
18 “To entice” means to allure, to attract, to
19 draw on, or to lead astray by exciting hope or
20 desire. It does not necessarily include any
21 domination over the child’s will.
22 “Detain” means to delay, to hinder, or to
23 retard. It does not necessarily include force or
24 menace.
25 “Lawful custodian” means a person, guardian
26 or public agency having a right to custody of a
27 child.
28 “Abduct” means take, entice away, keep, 12704
1 withhold, or conceal.
2 The fact that a minor child decided to go,
3 or to stay, or decided voluntarily to accompany an
4 adult is not a defense to the crime of unlawfully
5 taking, obtaining, concealing, or enticing away a
6 minor child.
7 Defendant is accused in Counts 2, 3, 4 and 5
8 of having committed the crime of lewd act with a
9 child, in violation of Section 288, Subdivision (a),
10 of the Penal Code.
11 Every person who willfully commits any lewd
12 or lascivious act upon or with the body, or any part
13 or member thereof, of a child under the age of 14
14 years, with the specific intent of arousing,
15 appealing to, or gratifying the lust or passions or
16 sexual desires of that person or that child, is
17 guilty of the crime of committing a lewd or
18 lascivious act upon the body of a child, in
19 violation of Penal Code Section 288, Subdivision (a).
20 A “lewd or lascivious act” is defined as any
21 touching of the body of a child under the age of 14
22 years with the specific intent to arouse, appeal to,
23 or gratify the sexual desires of either party. To
24 constitute a lewd or lascivious act, it is not
25 necessary that the bare skin be touched. The
26 touching may be through the clothing of the child.
27 The law does not require as an essential
28 element of the crime that the lust, passions, or 12705
1 sexual desires of either of such persons be actually
2 aroused, appealed to, or gratified.
3 It is no defense to this charge that a child
4 under the age of 14 years may have consented to the
5 alleged lewd or lascivious act.
6 In order to prove this crime, each of the
7 following elements must be proved:
8 A person touched the body of a child;
9 The child was under 14 years of age;
10 And, three, the touching was done with the
11 specific intent to arouse, appeal to, or gratify the
12 lust, passions or sexual desires of that person or
13 the child.
14 It is not essential to a finding of guilt on
15 a charge of lewd acts with a child under the age of
16 14 years that the testimony of the witness with whom
17 the sexual relations is alleged to have been
18 committed be corroborated by other evidence.
19 Is it time for a break? I think so. We’re
20 very close, but let’s take a break.
21 (Recess taken.)
22 THE COURT: All right.
23 Evidence has been presented to you
24 concerning Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation
25 Syndrome. This evidence is not received and must
26 not be considered by you as proof that the alleged
27 victim’s molestation claim is true.
28 Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome 12706
1 research is based upon an approach that is
2 completely different from that which you must take
3 to this case. The syndrome research begins with the
4 assumption that a molestation has occurred and seeks
5 to describe and explain common reactions of children
6 to that experience. As distinguished from the
7 research approach, you are to presume the defendant
8 innocent. The People have the burden of proving
9 guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
10 You should consider the evidence concerning
11 the syndrome and its effect only for the limited
12 purpose of showing, if it does, that the alleged
13 victim’s reactions, as demonstrated by the evidence,
14 are not inconsistent with him having been molested.
15 Defendant is accused in Count 1 of having
16 conspired to violate 518 of the Penal Code.
17 Every person who obtains property or other
18 things of value from another with his or her
19 consent, which consent has been induced by a
20 wrongful use of fear, is guilty of the crime of
21 extortion, in violation of Penal Code Section 518.
22 In order to prove this crime, each of the
23 following elements must be proved:
24 One, a person obtained property or something
25 of value from the alleged victim;
26 Two, the property or thing of value was
27 obtained with the consent of the alleged victim;
28 Three, the alleged victim’s consent was 12707
Subject: June 1, 2005 
Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:33 am
