Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Re: No connection to the crime except a prior conviction

She is in a bad situation, but simply telling her that she may have defenses based upon the facts does her little good unless she plans on defending herself. If that is the case, good luck, she'll need it. If she wants to have experienced counsel do the job right, feel free to contact me to discuss the facts and costs.

Re: No connection to the crime except a prior conviction

What a terrible situation. Unfortunately, the police can do just about what they want to do. Her best bet is to plead not guilty at the arraignment and set the case for the preliminary hearing. Then request all the DA's evidence against her. There are also several motions she can file such as a motion to suppress the evidence because of the illegal arrest.

Re: No connection to the crime except a prior conviction

You insist that the only connection between your daughter and the crime is her prior conviction, but that is simply not true. Her ex-boyfriend told the police that she had been in his house right before the item went missing, and that is a rather significant connection.

I am not sure what to make of your claim that the police investigation "consisted of merely her ex-boyfriend telling the officer of the theft and that she had been on the property before the item was missing". What more do you think the officer should have done? If the owner says the item was there a few hours earlier but that it is missing now and that your daughter was the only person who had access to it in the interim, I don't know what kind of additional investigation would have been helpful. Even if there is more the officer could have done, what you have described is enough to support your daughter's arrest.

The fact that the ex-boyfriend did not actually see her take whatever the item was does not bar her arrest. After all, most thefts take place when no one is looking (very few thieves are dumb enough to steel when they know they are being watched), so if the lack of an eyewitness was enough to prevent an arrest or prosecution then people would be getting away with theft all the time.

When and if your daughter goes on trial for this theft, chances are that the jury will never learn that she has a prior conviction. Such evidence is normally not admissible, and nothing you have said suggests that your daughter's case would be one in which such evidence could come in. Her ex-boyfriend will be allowed to testify, though, and if the jury believes what he says that will be enough to support a conviction.

Your daughter needs a lawyer, and she needs one now. The court will appoint one for her if she can't pay her legal bills, but you should do what you can to make sure she is able to pay for a private defense attorney. Most public defenders are very capable lawyers, but they are overworked and usually cannot give nearly as much time to a case as a private attorney can. A lawyer who is able to devote more time to your daughter's case will be more likely to either win outright or at least score a partial victory (by, say, negotiating a favorable plea agreement or persuading the jury that the crime is a misdemeanor rather than a felony). Hiring a good attorney will likely prove to be a very wise investment.