Introduction to Lawyering Skills
in the U.S. Legal System (LAW603C)
CREAC Worksheet
Facts:
Your client, Josh Siegel, is 16 years old. At midnight, Josh was hanging out with his friends in the parking lot of his apartment building. The police came by and cited Josh for violating curfew. The parking lot was unfenced and adjoined the public sidewalk. The lot was for residents’ use only, except for two spaces that members of the public could use when visiting the rental office. Building management enforced the parking rules and called a private towing company when necessary. Josh asks you if he has a possible defense. The following is the only precedent from your jurisdiction.
City of Beverly Hills v. Skeder
Sixth Appellate District, Poser, J., presiding:
Defendant Jacques Skeder was found guilty of a violation for breaking the curfew established by section 5-6-201 of the municipal code. Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient because he was on private property. We affirm.
The evidence at trial in the municipal court was as follows. Defendant, a high school sophomore at Beverly Hills High School, is a semi-professional rollerblader. He competes on a regular basis doing tricks at competitions. At 11:00 p.m. on November 22, 2004, Defendant was “practicing” in a makeshift “skate park.” The “skate park” consisted of a home-made ramp and an eight foot length of iron pipe attached to iron footings. The defendant set up these items on a cul-de-sac in his neighborhood. The neighborhood was a gated community, to which individuals had access only when invited. A neighbor complained to the police about the activity, and defendant was cited for violating the following curfew law:
It shall be unlawful for any minor under the age of eighteen (18) years to loiter, idle, wander, stroll, or aimlessly drive or ride about in or upon any public street, avenue, highway, road, curb area, alley, park, playground, or other public ground, public place or public building, between the hours of ten o’clock (10:00) P.M. on any day and sunrise of the immediately following day . . . .
B.H.M.C. §5-6-201(2005).
Defendant moved to dismiss at the close of the evidence, arguing that the cul-de-sac was privately owned property. The municipal court denied the motion.
Evidence supporting a violation is legally sufficient when, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, it justifies a reasonable factfinder in concluding that the violation is proven.
We agree that the evidence was sufficient. Notwithstanding that the cul-de-sac was privately owned, the evidence was sufficient that it was public in character. We look to the nature of the property in question and not to the owner of record. Like any road, the cul-de-sac was accessible to members of the general public, even though access to the neighborhood was somewhat limited. Guests could enter the neighborhood to visit residents. Trucks used the streets to make deliveries. School buses picked up children. Moreover, normal safety measures — speed limits, parking restrictions, crosswalks, and traffic laws — were enforced by the police.
To be sure, curfew laws do not reach inside a home, or even in a front yard or driveway — places which are traditionally private and where a teen is under the supervision of his family. But the street in this case was of a public character. We affirm the judgment.
Directions:
This worksheet will be used to help you to write a discussion on whether Josh Siegel was in a “public place” under the code, using the CREAC framework. You must address each CREAC section and subsection below. Ace my homework – Write in complete sentences and cite to any applicable statute or case where appropriate.
CONCLUSION (select one)
The evidence is sufficient to prove that Siegel was in a public place.
OR
The evidence is insufficient to prove that Siegel was in a public place.
RULE
EXPLANATION
Facts of the case
Holding of the case
Reasoning of the case
APPLICATION
Our facts
Similarities between our facts and the case’s facts (comparisons suggesting the same result)
Differences between our facts and the case’s facts (comparisons suggesting a different result)
Reasoning (explain the conclusion a judge would reach on sufficiency)
CONCLUSION (reiterate your conclusion selected above)
Therefore, the evidence is sufficient to prove that Siegel was in a public place.
OR
Therefore, the evidence is insufficient to prove that Siegel was in a public place.
ANY CAVEATS OR ANY UNKNOWN FACTS THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT (if needed)
