Opinion ID: 2253638
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Facts and Record Relating to the Civil Compromise

Text: Pursuant to a June 23, 2004, order of the appellate division, the record was augmented with a declaration of the minor's father, John R. In this undated declaration, Mr. R. states that he was contacted by Respondent's trial attorney on behalf of Respondent to consider a civil compromise. Mr. R.'s declaration then states: I have agreed to a civil compromise in this matter if approved by the court so that Mr. Gokcek will pay our family the sum of $4,000, that sum to include any claims due for any civil action and damages to which we may be entitled. Mr. R. states that he has accepted Respondent's apology and that I am signing this declaration because Mr. Gokcek has no prior record and because I believe this resolution will benefit our family and society more than a continuation of the criminal proceedings. Mr. R. further acknowledges that he has received $4,000 by check. On December 13, 2003, the parties appeared before the trial judge to consider Respondent's motion for a civil compromise. The People opposed the motion. In the People's opposition papers, the sole objection raised to the compromise was that the compromise could not be applied to child victims. At the hearing, the People apparently attempted to argue that the compromise could not apply to child victims who suffered an injury other than an accidental injury. The court rejected the People's arguments and found that the civil compromise statute was applicable because the charged crime of misdemeanor false imprisonment is not the type of charge that contemplates any kind of physical injury and that violation of Penal Code sections 236 and 237 is not something that is covered by these sections. The court then ruled, [s]o I am willing to approve the compromise, but I won't dismiss the charge until the defendant does 100 hours of community service and also does 20 hours of anger management counseling. In clarifying the need for Respondent's presence, the court further stated, all I have done is approved the compromise. I haven't dismissed the charge. The deputy district attorney voiced no further objection to this ruling. At the close of the proceedings, the court again clarified by stating, [s]o although I approved the compromise, the charge will still be there, and if he doesn't satisfy me that he has completed it, then we'll press on with the prosecution.