Dear Orange County Creepers: Leave Our Hoosier Girls Alone!
59-Year-Old’s Relationship with Indiana “minor” Upheld by California Court of Appeals
A recent case from the California Court of Appeals caught my attention because it involved a defendant here in California, and a “victim” in my home state of Indiana. In the matter of People v. Shapiro (2014) Cal.App.4th, the court affirmed the conviction of 59-year-old Mark Irving Shapiro (hereafter “Old Shapiro”), who had a 2+ year online relationship with a young Hoosier girl (hereafter “Hoosier Jane Doe”), who was 14-years-old at the onset of their communication.
Shapiro pretended to be young lad in Huntington Beach, California, when he began talking to Hoosier Jane Doe in chat rooms just before her 15th birthday. He claimed that he was only a few years older than her and even sent her pictures of a teenage boy to represent himself. After a while, their occasional chats turned into constant contact, to the extent that Hoosier Jane Doe began to shut out her real life friends and family in favor of Old Shapiro, and even claimed to be “in love” with him. When Hoosier Jane Doe was 16, the relationship turned sexual. Old Shapiro began encouraging her to masturbate and sending her links to pornographic videos and exchanging naked pictures of his teenage alter ego for naked pictures of her. He also convinced her to penetrate herself with the handle of a hairbrush in order to achieve orgasm.
Eventually Hoosier Jane Doe’s parents became worried about the dramatic changes in her behavior and they hired a private investigator to do a background check on their daughter’s long-distance love. After installing a keystroke logger on her computer, they were able to track down Old Shapiro’s true identity and the subject case ensued.
Old Shapiro was convicted of violating California Penal Code section 288.3(a), and sentenced to 5 years of formal probation and 240 days in jail. On appeal, Old Shapiro put forth several failing arguments, including a defense that the trial court had rejected based on Indiana’s definition of a “minor.”
The defendant was convicted of violating a statute that prohibits contact with a minor with intent to commit one of the target crimes; the target crime in this case was California Penal Code section 289(h), which prohibits “participation in an act of sexual penetration with another person who is under 18 years of age.” For purposes of the statute, “sexual penetration” is defined as “the act of causing penetration, however slight…by any foreign object, substance, instrument or device, or by any unknown object.”
I included the text of the statute here for a reason: Old Shapiro argued that he had the mistaken belief that he was not violating Penal Code 288.3, which prohibits contact with a minor – because in Indiana, the age of consent is 16. However, the argument fails because the target crime here specifically prohibits participating in penetration of someone who is “under 18 years of age,” and does not use the term “minor.”
Shapiro also claimed it was a violation of his right to privacy and free speech, claiming that since Hoosier Jane Doe was an adult under Indiana law, the two had the right, as consenting adults, to discuss sex. The court disagreed. Another part of Old Shapiro’s argument was that California’s law was intended only to protect California minors, but the court was equally unpersuaded by this contention, especially since the statute in question makes no mention of the minor’s location.
The point of this discussion is just to point out that when you are charged with a particular offense in one state, you should expect the laws of that state to apply – and not rely on another state’s definition or loophole to provide you with some sort of defense. Although we are all entitled to Equal Protection under the law, alleged violations of that principle are subject to tough scrutiny under the law and will rarely be cause for exoneration.
Shapiro pretended to be young lad in Huntington Beach, California, when he began talking to Hoosier Jane Doe in chat rooms just before her 15th birthday. He claimed that he was only a few years older than her and even sent her pictures of a teenage boy to represent himself. After a while, their occasional chats turned into constant contact, to the extent that Hoosier Jane Doe began to shut out her real life friends and family in favor of Old Shapiro, and even claimed to be “in love” with him. When Hoosier Jane Doe was 16, the relationship turned sexual. Old Shapiro began encouraging her to masturbate and sending her links to pornographic videos and exchanging naked pictures of his teenage alter ego for naked pictures of her. He also convinced her to penetrate herself with the handle of a hairbrush in order to achieve orgasm.
Eventually Hoosier Jane Doe’s parents became worried about the dramatic changes in her behavior and they hired a private investigator to do a background check on their daughter’s long-distance love. After installing a keystroke logger on her computer, they were able to track down Old Shapiro’s true identity and the subject case ensued.
Old Shapiro was convicted of violating California Penal Code section 288.3(a), and sentenced to 5 years of formal probation and 240 days in jail. On appeal, Old Shapiro put forth several failing arguments, including a defense that the trial court had rejected based on Indiana’s definition of a “minor.”
The defendant was convicted of violating a statute that prohibits contact with a minor with intent to commit one of the target crimes; the target crime in this case was California Penal Code section 289(h), which prohibits “participation in an act of sexual penetration with another person who is under 18 years of age.” For purposes of the statute, “sexual penetration” is defined as “the act of causing penetration, however slight…by any foreign object, substance, instrument or device, or by any unknown object.”
I included the text of the statute here for a reason: Old Shapiro argued that he had the mistaken belief that he was not violating Penal Code 288.3, which prohibits contact with a minor – because in Indiana, the age of consent is 16. However, the argument fails because the target crime here specifically prohibits participating in penetration of someone who is “under 18 years of age,” and does not use the term “minor.”
Shapiro also claimed it was a violation of his right to privacy and free speech, claiming that since Hoosier Jane Doe was an adult under Indiana law, the two had the right, as consenting adults, to discuss sex. The court disagreed. Another part of Old Shapiro’s argument was that California’s law was intended only to protect California minors, but the court was equally unpersuaded by this contention, especially since the statute in question makes no mention of the minor’s location.
The point of this discussion is just to point out that when you are charged with a particular offense in one state, you should expect the laws of that state to apply – and not rely on another state’s definition or loophole to provide you with some sort of defense. Although we are all entitled to Equal Protection under the law, alleged violations of that principle are subject to tough scrutiny under the law and will rarely be cause for exoneration.
- Tags: California, California criminals, court of appeals, criminal conviction, criminal defense, Cybercrime, Equal Protection, Free Speech, Indiana, Los Angeles Lawyer, Orange County, Orange County Lawyer, sex crimes
Comments (0)