Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Elmassian v. Flores (2021)

Citation
Elmassian v. Flores (2021)
Parent Document
Elmassian v. Flores (2021)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2021-09-17

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text

2,470 chars
19
       We quickly dispense with the trial court’s reason to bar the domestic violence defense
due to Oscar’s acts because the May 5 and June 12 documents were “notices only” and “not
police reports.” The court appeared to distinguish between a report by a law enforcement
officer that memorializes the officer’s efforts in interviewing witnesses and investigating the
case, and when a report only narrates reporting parties “making the report, to let them obtain a
police report.” The May 5 document (as did the June 12 one which fell outside the pertinent
period and thus could not be used to support the defense) consisted of a single page stating, at
the top, “Los Angeles Police Department INVESTIGATIVE REPORT” (capitalization in
original), and documented a police officer going to the apartment complex and taking a report
based on what defendant said and then both the officer and defendant signing the report.
Contrary to the court’s conclusion, the plain words of the statute only require “a written report”
by a peace officer, and both an initial report based on a victim’s statements and a report
narrating further investigative efforts fit this requirement.
       As to the court’s reason for precluding the defense, that “there is insufficient descriptive
information” in the report, it is true that neither Oscar nor any other perpetrator is named, and
that the perpetrator is not described as a boyfriend, husband, cohabitant, or as fitting any of the
other relations listed in the domestic violence statute (Fam. Code, § 6211). In addition, the
report only related one incident that happened on May 5, yet defendant’s position was that
plaintiff relied on multiple domestic violence acts that happened in April and May 2019 in
attempting to prove defendant committed a nuisance.
       The May 5 report states, “Susp used one of his feet to kick the victim’s door, as a result
the bottom portion of the door broke [sic]”; the report indicates the crime occurred on “5/5/19
2300 HRS” at the apartment complex where defendant lived; and the officer who took the
report and signed his name checked a box stating “DOMESTIC VIOLENCE” (capitalization in
original).
       The report thus fulfilled all statutory requirements: (1) It was in writing; (2) executed
within 180 days from when plaintiff sought to terminate defendant’s tenancy; (3) written by an
officer in the officer’s official capacity; and (4) the tenant filed the report alleging she was a