People v. Lee

The facts in this opinion serve as a reminder that you needn't be likable to be a crime victim. 

 Lee was driving a rented Range Rover through Los Angeles with his fiance and friends.  The victim was panhandling at the end of an off-ramp where Lee was stopped.  Victim approached Lee's vehicle and asked for money and Lee shooed him away.  Victim persisted, Lee yelled at him to go away, victim yelled back at Lee and lifted up his shirt, displaying a tattoo on his stomach of "a male and a female in a sexual position".  Lee felt the victim had disrespected Lee's fiance with this body-art display.  Lee and the victim escalated their shouting match and the victim supplemented his bon mots with sexual pantomimes.

Though not what you really want to see during a drive with your fiance and friends, the best reaction is not to run down the panhandler and beat him silly with a tire iron.  Which is what witnesses testified they saw. 

In making their case against Lee, the police obtained a warrant to search for guns at a house in Malibu that Lee had earlier identified as his residence.  The warrant affidavit stated that Lee was a convicted felon and that a governmental firearms registry showed Lee as the registered owner of two pistols.  No guns were found while executing the search warrant, but a person present at the residence gave the police the name and phone number of one of the passengers in the Range Rover at the time Lee allegedly beat the victim.  The police contacted this passenger whose statement was very bad for Lee. 

Prior to trial, Lee requested, and was granted, a Franks hearing, as part of a motion to suppress the testimony of the passenger.  The essence of Lee's argument was that Lee registered the two pistols in 1995 and didn't pick up his felony until 2001 and that the application for the warrant omitted these facts.  Lee argued that had the affiant included the dates in his affidavit, the magistrate would not have signed it, the police would not have searched the Malibu home, would not have met the occupant who gave them the passenger's information, and hence, would never have secured the testimony of the passenger.  After the hearing(s), the trial court agreed with Lee about the omissions from the affidavit and quashed the warrant, but denied Lee's motion to suppress the testimony of the passenger.

The passenger testified and Lee was convicted.  He appealed and argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress.  

The Appellate panel agrees the trial court erred, but unfortunately for Lee finds that it erred in quashing the warrant as well as in granting Lee's Franks hearing.  Lee's remaining contentions are rejected. 

As for the victim, after the beating he was arrested for slinging cocaine and while in custody jumped another inmate.  He managed to retain a civil lawyer to sue Lee for his injuries.  His lawyer was in the courtroom during Lee's trial and the victim gave him a big "thumbs up" gesture in view of the jury while leaving the witness stand.  

Not every criminal case conforms to a conventional narrative.