People v. Buffum

Supreme Court of California · 1953 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawConspiracyAttemptAbortionTerritorial JurisdictionCorroborationPenal Code section 182Penal Code section 184

Facts

Four pregnant women separately sought Buffum's help in obtaining abortions in Long Beach. Buffum refused to perform the abortions himself, but he or Rankin arranged by telephone for payment, pickup, and transportation, and Rankin drove the women from Long Beach to Tijuana, where another man performed operations on them with Rankin's assistance. Some statements by Buffum and Rankin suggested San Diego or California as the intended location, but the actual operations occurred in Mexico. At trial, the prosecution also introduced evidence of Mexican abortion law over defendants' objection.

Issue

Can defendants be convicted in California of conspiracy to violate Penal Code section 274 based on an agreement formed in California to transport women to Mexico for abortions performed there? Also, were the trial court's evidentiary and instructional rulings regarding Mexican law and corroboration proper?

Rule

A conspiracy conviction under Penal Code section 182 requires an agreement to commit a crime and an act done in California to effect the object of the agreement. Penal Code section 27(1) and section 778a apply to conduct aimed at crimes consummated outside California only when the acts done within California amount at least to an attempt, meaning a specific intent plus a direct, unequivocal ineffectual act toward commission; mere preparation is insufficient. In abortion cases, a woman who voluntarily submits to the abortion is not prosecutable for conspiracy to violate section 274 and is not an accomplice under section 1111, but under section 1108 her testimony must be corroborated in a trial for procuring, attempting to procure, or aiding or assisting in an abortion, including conspiracy to procure one.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Sacramento, Dr. Nolan Pierce and Evan Soto agree to help pregnant patients obtain abortions. Pierce gives Soto the patients' phone numbers, Soto quotes prices, and Soto drives the patients from California to Reno, Nevada, where an unaffiliated physician performs the procedures. No medical procedure or use of instruments occurs in California.

If California prosecutes Pierce and Soto for conspiracy to violate its abortion statute solely on the theory that they agreed in California to have the abortions performed in Nevada, what is the strongest argument for the defense under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority rule is that California conspiracy law does not reach an agreement to commit the substantive crime outside the state unless the acts done in California are sufficient to amount at least to an attempt. Attempt requires specific intent plus a direct, unequivocal, ineffectual act toward commission; mere preparation is insufficient. Arranging appointments, quoting prices, and transporting patients to another state for procedures there are preparatory acts, not an attempt to violate the California abortion statute.