Opinion ID: 2253638
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The January 26, 2005 Hearing

Text: Following this court's order, the trial court held a hearing in which it formally dismissed the case and issued a minute order under Penal Code section 1385, stating that the dismissal was based upon the civil compromise. At this hearing, the trial judge reiterated the reasons why he was accepting the civil compromise and dismissing the case. Specifically, the trial judge stated that he disagreed with the People's argument that the civil compromise could not be used in this case because the victim was a child. Instead, the trial judge concluded that the prohibition against the civil compromise only concerned situations involving crimes against family members: Looking at what I believe to be the legislative history that preceded the enactment of those sections, it seems to have been an attempt to cover family relationships to make sure that the people couldn't civilly compromise their way out of beating their own children or they would have undue influence over the victim. The trial judge pointed out that Respondent had absolutely no relationship to the victim and had no basis for undue influence over the victim. In addition, the trial judge indicated that he did not regard this [the crime] as a particularly severe event. In approving the compromise, the trial judge concluded he did not believe the civil compromise statute was meant to be read that broadly and that it was intended to be limited to situations where there was some sort of relationship between the victim and the defendant.