PEOPLE -v- BRIDGES: Failure to Register Nunaces

5-11-2011 California:

A jury convicted defendant Paul Bridges on count one of failing to annually register as a sex offender within five days of his birthday, and on count two of failing to inform law enforcement of his new address within five days after moving.

Defendant first contends on appeal that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction on count two. Defendant argues applicable law requires proof that defendant moved to a new address in California, not to an address out of state. Defendant also argues that the only evidence of his move was his own out-of-court statement to the probation officer, which cannot be considered unless the People have independent proof of the offense. We conclude defendant was required to notify law enforcement within five days of moving, regardless of whether he moved inside or outside the state, and there was ample independent evidence that defendant failed to do so.

Similarly, defendant next contends the trial court erred in failing to give CALCRIM No. 359 as an instruction. CALCRIM No. 359 would have instructed the jury that defendant could not be convicted based on his out-of-court statement alone, and that the People had to have independent proof of the offense. We conclude that because there was ample independent proof of the offense charged in count two, any error in giving CALCRIM No. 359 as an instruction was harmless.

Finally, defendant contends the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the elements of count one, failing to annually register as a sex offender within five days of his birthday, because defendant was not required to do the annual update of his registration if he resided out of state, and the instructions did not clearly inform the jury of the People's burden to prove that defendant resided in California on his birthday. The Attorney General responds that whether or not the instructions were misleading, it is nonetheless true that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction on count one. The Attorney General agrees with defendant that he was not required to do the annual update of his registration if he resided out of state at the time of his birthday, and that the People did not prove when defendant moved out of state.

We will reverse count one as not supported by substantial evidence. In all other respects we will affirm the judgment. ..Source..