I was curious about this. In a California criminal jury trial would the civil statute be admissible as evidence of reasonableness? Would the judge's charge reference the civil statute, or is it akin to the reasonableness charge in a civil negligence case? Is there any sanction for violating the civil statute? In a civil proceeding for conversion, is non-compliance with the civil statute dispositive?
I'd very much appreciate your views.
Criminal law is an asymmetric proceeding where the defendant enjoys most of the rights and the state bears most of the burdens. (This is because the US constitution was set up to protect the rights of the accused in criminal cases and not to make both parties equal.) The effect of this is that a *defendant* would be able to introduce the civil statute as evidence to prove that his conduct was reasonable (assuming that he complied with the civil statute), but the state would be prohibited from introducing the same evidence to show that the defendant's action was not reasonable.
Aside from the words of the penal statute, there are two established (as a matter of case law and constitutional law) principles that come into play. The first is the void-for-vagueness doctrine, which holds generally that penal laws need to be written clearly enough that persons of average understanding can tell what is being prohibited. Void-for-vagueness cases include not just cases where the actual penal law is badly written, but also cases where the penal law seeks to encompass other parts of the law not clearly referenced in the penal law.
The second principle is kind of related - it's a canon of construction called the "rule of lenity," and it basically holds that if there is ambiguity in a criminal law, the ambiguity is construed against the state. (With the general idea being that if we are going to write a law that can result in someone being incarcerated, it should be unambiguous; also, the state is in the position to write a clear law).
This doesn't mean that principles from civil law never apply in criminal cases - motor vehicle titles are regulated in the motor vehicle code, but you can use a title to show ownership of an automobile in a criminal case, since that won't conflict with the penal law.
Re: civil issues - I didn't see a sanction for violating the civil statute, although there may be a general provision elsewhere in the code that would apply - I didn't really look for one. At the very least, though, violating the civil code would create a civil cause of action entitling the plaintiff to have his property returned, plus any damages.
In a civil proceeding for conversion, noncompliance with the statute would be dispositive of the ownership issue, although you would still need to prove that the item was converted and establish damages (if there aren't statutory damages).
You are right that the violation of the civil code is not a crime. But the civil code defines what is and what is not ownership. It is thus intertwined with the criminal code which in no event grants ownership of the property to the "finder". As for what is "reasonable", complying with the code can reasonably be inferred to be the most reasonable standard, because it is required under law. But I agree that it would have been "reasonable" to hand the phone over to the bar as it would have equally served the purpose of Apple finding its phone and would be what the "reasonably prudent person" would have done.
This is right, for the reasons I included in my above response - we won't throw someone in prison for turning the phone over to the bartender, even if that isn't the lost property procedure set forth in the civil code. Also, a civil suit for conversion wouldn't lie because turning the phone over to the bartender isn't converting it to your own use.
The civil code, by the way, defines ownership of real property and the methods of showing it's yours. The penal code about burglary doesn't define such ownership, but you can rest assured that if you burgle a house that you cannot plead that the owner didn't own it because it wasn't defined in the penal code.
This is correct. Note that in burglary and most common crimes, the state isn't required to prove that someone specific owned the house, just that the defendant didn't own it. (This is more of an aside, I suppose).
it's just a phone, if it was important - apple would never allow to take outside.
