Federal Judiciary

People v. Murillo (Cal. Ct. App. - Sept. 1, 2020)

By Shaun Martin

Here's proof that times do change.  Or at least change from my own personal experiences.

?During the evening of April 12, 1992, 15-year-old Mirna G., 14-year-old Gabriel N. and defendant gathered at a park with a number of others. At some point, it was decided that a group of these individuals would do a ?beer run,? meaning to take beer from a store without paying for it."

First of all,when I was 14- and 15 years old, I did not go on "beer runs" with my friends.  That came later in life.  A fair piece later.

I'm not saying that I'd have been totally uninterested in going on a beer run at that age were it feasible.  Though, to be honest, personally, I also don't recall having a particular interest in alcohol at that age. (Fast forward to 17 or 18 and I'll readily concede a slight change in interests, though even then, I was not a high school drinking type of person.  I make no similar representations about college.)  The point is:  I did not go on "beer runs" when I was 14 or 15.

Second, during my experiences, anyway, what we called "beer runs" were not what today's opinion calls a "beer run."  On a beer run, we went and purchased beer.  I was unaware that the terminology changed, at least as represented by this opinion, to mean going to a store and stealing it.  I'm not sure whether this is a temporal, geographic, or other type of variance.  But those words did not mean what they're said to mean here.

Finally, during the "beer runs" in my personal experience, no one got shot and killed.  Ever.  Unlike here.

A pretty substantial difference, I think.  For everyone involved.

Full post as published by California Appellate Report on September 01, 2020 (boomark / email).