X hits on this document

48 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

8 / 23

On August 27, 2007, Staton served a search warrant on defendant’s home in Temecula.  The deputy recognized the house as the setting for many of the Internet photographs advertising defendant’s prostitutes.  During the search, the following items were found inside:  red satin sheets and sex toys seen in the photographs, a “Little Red Riding Hood” outfit worn by D. in one of the photographs, five or six cell phones, $648 in cash in the pocket of a man’s large shirt, a key to a room at the Comfort Inn, and defendant’s probation papers.

At the close of evidence, defense counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal on counts 2 and 3.  (§ 1118.1.)  Because Q. and D. were prostitutes, counsel argued, under section 1111, they were “accomplices and coconspirators” whose testimony could not be used to corroborate each other or to substantiate the charges against his client.  Without their testimony, counsel reasoned, there was no evidence that defendant had procured P. or that she had ever actually been a prostitute, had worked for defendant, or had given him money.

In explaining its decision to deny the motion, the court agreed with the prosecutor that the photographs of P. with D. posted on craigslist, along with the testimony of H., Rohn, and Staton, corroborated D.’s statement that P. also worked for defendant as a prostitute.  Although P. did not testify and no witness directly observed her giving defendant money, the court said the jury could reasonably infer from all the evidence that he had not posted her photographs on the Internet without expecting remuneration, that she had worked for him on the same terms as the other girls, and that she too had given him money.

Document info
Document views48
Page views48
Page last viewedMon Dec 05 01:48:14 UTC 2016
Pages23
Paragraphs101
Words5658

Comments