User talk:BarkingCookie

PEOPLE V. POINTER

Extended Case Brief of PEOPLE V. POINTER
Written by a first year, part-time law student at South Texas College of Law (STCL), Houston, Texas [1] Criminal Law class, Prof. Dru Stevenson, Spring 2009

An Extended Case Brief of

[edit] People v. Pointer California Court of Appeals, First District, 1984. 151 Cal.App.3d 1128, 119 Cal.Rptr. 357.

Appellant, Ruby Pointer, was a devoted follower of a rigorously disciplined macrobiotic diet. She was a mother of a four year old boy, Barron, and a two year old boy, Jamal, at the time the trial took place. Ms. Pointer imposed her chosen diet on the two children without the approval of their father and her doctor, who informed her that a macrobiotic diet was inappropraite and unhealthy for young children. She was also breastfeeding Jamal at the time and the doctor opposed this, as well, as being hazardous to the baby.

In October 1980, the boy's father contacted California's Children's Protective Services, who sent a social worker to meet with the boys and their mother. It was recommended that Ms. Pointer be interviewed by a pediatrician, herself a vegetarian, to encourage Ms. Pointer to alter the diets of her children to improve their health. Appellant did not meet with the pediatrician, as recommended, on two seperate occasions.

On November 25, 1980, the younger child was presented to the pediatrician by Ms. Pointer, who was informed that her child was emaciated, semicomatose, and in a state of shock, was dying and in immediate need of hospitalization. Appellant refused for fear that Jamal would be given preservatives intravenously. Notwithstanding, the pediatrician contacted the police and the boy was hospitalized soon thereafter.

Appellant was charged and found guilty by jury of violation of California Penal Code sections 273, felony child endangerment, and 278.5, a custody decree. She was sentenced by the trial judge to five years probation on the condition that she serve one year in county jail; participate in counseling; not be informed of the whereabouts of Jamal, her younger son, and have no unsupervised visits with him; have no custody of any children, including her own, without prior court approval; and that she not conceive during the probationary period.

The California Court of Appeals affirmed all conditions of the sentence, except for the last one, the prohibition to conceive. Appellant challenged this condition as an unconstitutional restriction of her fundamental rights to privacy and to procreate.

The Court found the condition reasonable because the condition was related to the crime for which she was convicted; however, it agreed that it infringed on the fundamental right of privacy protected by both the federal and California state constitutions. The Court concluded that the condition prohibiting Ms. Pointer from procreating during her probationary period was overbroad and that other less restrictive alternatives were available to the trial judge. The case was remanded (sent back) to the trial court for resentencing consistent with the Court's views.

In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

[1] [2]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BarkingCookie" BarkingCookie (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of People v. Pointer
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article People v. Pointer, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * This seems to be a cut and paste of somebody's homework essay. It would need a complete rewrite to become an encyclopaedia article. Notability is not clear. There is no contextual information.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. DanielRigal (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)