Important California Cases Interpreting California Hate Crime Statutes California Supreme Court cases In re M. S. (1995) 10 Gal. 4th 698 ( California Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of California's hate crime
statutes, rejecting defense claims that the laws are over broad, vague, or impermissible content-based regulation of speech; the court also ruled that when a defendant has multiple motives for committing a crime, the
kind of bias prohibited by the hate crime law must be a substantial factor in bringing about the crime before the crime will be considered a hate crime.) People v. Superior (Aishman) (1995) 10 Gal. 4th 735 (Penal Code section 422.75, which provides for imposition of a sentence enhancement for felonies committed because of the victim's actual or perceived
race, color, nationality, country or origin, ancestry, disability or sexual orientation, does not need to be read to include a specific intent requirement; this section will also be interpreted to require that when
multiple concurrent causes for the offense exist, if the bias motivation is a substantial factor in bringing about the offense, the perpetrator's sentence can be enhanced.) California Court of Appeal Cases Coon v. Joseph (1987) 192
Cal.App.3d 1269 (Plaintiff, who witnessed attack on male lover, was not allowed to bring suit under Ralph Act.)
J.R. Norton Co. v. General Teamsters, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local 890 (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 430 (Violence by striking employees constituted a violation of section 51.7 and warranted a civil penalty.) In re David L.
(1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1655, rev. den. 1992 (Penal Code section 422 does not require showing of gang membership; threat to intended victim can be conveyed through third party; person making threat must have
specific intent that it be taken as a threat but need not have intent to carry out threat.) People v. Lashley
(1991), 1 Cal.App.4th 938 rev. den. 1992, cert. den., (1992) (court
held that Penal Code sections 422.6 and 422.7 require proof that the defendant possessed a specific intent to deprive an individual of a right secured by federal or state law, and that the evidence supported the
conclusion that defendant interfered with the victims in their exercise and enjoyment of the right to be free from violence.) People v. Fisher (1993), 12
Cal.App.4th 1556 (court upheld constitutionality of Penal Code section 422 and rejected arguments that it was overbroad, criminalized protected speech, and was intended to apply only to gang-related activity.) In re Joshua H. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1734, rev. den. (1993) (Penal Code section 422.7 does not violate the First Amendment; it does not proscribe expression, but it proscribes the
conduct of selecting crime victims on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin or sexual orientation.) In re Steven S.
(1994) 25 Gal. App. 4th 598, rev. den. (1994) (court upheld the constitutionality of a cross-burning statute)
Boccato v. City of Hermosa Beach (1994) 29 Gal. App. 4th 1797, reh. den
. (1994) (In action against city by owners of two stores selling alcoholic beverages challenging the validity of an ordinance requiring them to obtain conditional use permits in order to continue to sell
alcoholic beverages, plaintiffs did not state a Civil Code section 52.1 claim because they did not allege that they were among the protected classes specified in the statute; read together, Civil Code sections 51.7 and
52.1 require that a plaintiff claiming interference with his or her right must also allege that the interference was due to his or her race, color or other protected classification.) Gates v. Superior Court (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 481 (Defendant police officers were immune from Ralph Act claim for money damages because of immunity provided by Government Code section 845.) People v. MacKenzie (1995) 34 Gal. App. 4th 1256, rev. den. (1995) (In prosecution for the hate crime of brandishing a firearm for the purpose of interfering with the civil rights of
an African-American, court held that Penal Code section 422.7 was not void for vagueness; prosecution need not show that defendant acted with knowledge of particular provisions of state or federal law or that he was
even thinking in those terms; it is sufficient if the right is clearly defined and the defendant intended to invade interests protected by constitutional or statutory authority; section 422.7 does not violate equal
protection principles since it properly punishes the discriminatory violent offender more harshly than the random violent offender; the statute regulates conduct, not speech.) Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist. v. Superior Court (1995) 38 Gal. App. 4th 141 (The Bane Act is not a wrongful death provision. It provides for a personal cause of action for the victim of a hate crime and is thus limited
to plaintiffs who themselves have been the subject of violence or threats.) Jones v. KMart Corp. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1898, review granted by California Supreme Court on Mar. 12, 1997 (When a
section 52.1 claim is based on a constitutional right that can only be violated by state action, an action only lies against parties whose conduct is chargeable to the state.) California Federal Hate Crime Cases
Diem v. City and County of San Francisco (N.D. Gal. 1988) 686 F. Supp. 806 (Ralph Act claims for religious and other discrimination are not preempted by the Fair employment and Housing Act, Government Code section
12900, et seq.) Rose v. City of Los Angeles
(C.D. Gal. 1993) 814 F.Supp. 878 (A claim under the Ralph Act may not be brought when no violence or intimidation has been committed or threatened
against the plaintiff.) Burnette v. Godshall
(N.D. Gal. 1993) 828 F.Supp. 1439 (An individual's Ralph Act rights are non-negotiable, and thus may not be preempted by collective bargaining agreements.) Doe v. Petaluma City School Dist. (N.D.Cal. 1993) 830 F.Supp. 1560 (While several sections of the Government Code immunize school officials from claims of infliction of emotional distress, such immunity does not
extend to Bane Act claims.) Rabkin v. Dean
(N.D. Gal. 1994) 856 F.Supp. 543, 552 (Interference with rights must rise to violence or threat of violence to be actionable under the Bane Act.)
Revnolds v. County of San Diego (S.D. Gal. 1994) 858 F.Supp. 1064, 1074 (Court dismissed plaintiff's section 52.1 claim for failure to allege the violation of a state right where defendant was immune
from suit claiming violation of federal rights.) Beliveau v. Caras (C.D.Cal. 1995) 873 F.Supp. 1393 (Plaintiff had a Ralph Act claim against the owner of her apartment
building for the sexual battery committed by his employee, the resident manager, while he was in her apartment to fix a leaky faucet.) Gaston v. Colio (S.D.Cal. 1995)
883 F.Supp. 508, 510 (No allegation of discrimination in the complaint, so no standing under Ralph Act or Bane Act.)
Important United States Supreme Court Hate Crime Cases R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul
(1992) 505 U.S. 377 (Supreme Court struck down city ordinance proscribing messages of racial, gender, or religious intolerance, because it made criminal only those types of expression which were disfavored by the city council; this was held to be impermissible content-based restriction of speech.)
Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993)_508 U.S. 476 (Mitchell's First Amendment rights were not violated by the application of a penalty-enhancement provision for hate crimes in sentencing him;
Wisconsin statute is aimed at conduct unprotected by the First Amendment; state's desire to redress greater individual and societal harm inflicted by bias-inspired conduct was motive for passing statute, not
disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases; statute has no chilling effect on free speech.) |
