This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
People v. Saephanh, 80 Cal. App. 4th 451, 94 Cal. Rptr. 910 (2001), is a United States criminal case in which it was determined that solicitation of another person to commit a crime can occur even if the solicitation is never communicated to that person.[1]: 702 Saephanh conceived a child with a woman, was imprisoned, and from prison wrote a letter soliciting another person to attack the woman to terminate the pregnancy.[1]: 702 The letter was intercepted by a prison official before it was delivered. The court held that solicitation did not occur, but that "attempted solicitation" did, even though this was a doubly inchoate crime (i.e., neither the attack nor the communication actually occurred).[1]: 702
| People v. Saephanh | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Full case name | The People, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Lou Tong Saephanh, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Decided | April 28, 2000 |
| Citations | 80 Cal. App. 4th 451; 94 Cal. Rptr. 910 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Nikolas Dibiaso, Thomas A. Harris, Joseph Kalashian[a] |
| Case opinions | |
| Decision by | Harris |
| Concurrence | Dibiaso, Kalashian |
Notes
edit- ^ Appointed from Tulare Superior Court
References
edit- ^ a b c Criminal Law - Cases and Materials, 7th ed. 2012, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business; John Kaplan (law professor), Robert Weisberg, Guyora Binder, ISBN 978-1-4548-0698-1, [1]
External links
editText of People v. Saephanh is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Leagle
 | This article relating to case law in the United States or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |