SEX CRIMES LAW — CALIFORNIA
Lewd Acts with a Child in California — PC §288
Lewd acts with a child under 14 under PC §288(a) is a felony carrying 3–8 years and lifetime sex offender registration. It is one of the most serious sex crime charges in California.
Reviewed by Daniel S. Rubin, CA Bar 302093 · Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney
On This Page
Jump to a Section
Quick Reference
Lewd Acts with Minor California — At a Glance
- Law / Code
- PC §288
- Classification
- Felony
- Maximum Penalty
- 3, 6, or 8 years state prison / additional terms for force or aggravation
- Probation Eligible
- Extremely limited
- Strike Offense
- Yes — violent felony
What Is Lewd Acts with Minor California Under California Law?
Legal Framework. Penal Code section 288(a) makes it a felony to willfully and lewdly commit a lewd or lascivious act on the body, or any part or member, of a child under 14 years old, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires of the defendant or the child. The statute reaches touching of the child or causing the child to touch the defendant; skin-to-skin contact is not required, and a touching over clothing may qualify. The prosecution must prove the act was willful and was committed with the required sexual intent. Under 14 is an element measured at the time of the alleged act. A child’s apparent willingness or lack of physical resistance does not itself disprove a violation of PC §288(a), but the evidence must still establish every element beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Prosecution's Burden. A violation of PC §288(a) is a felony, not a wobbler. Its ordinary sentencing triad is three, six, or eight years in state prison. PC §288(a) is also a violent felony for purposes of Penal Code section 667.5(c)(6), and it generally requires lifetime sex-offender registration under Penal Code section 290.006. The charge can have major custody, immigration, employment, licensing, housing, family-law, and probation consequences. Where the prosecution alleges force, violence, duress, menace, or fear, and the child was under 14, it may instead charge PC §288(b)(1), which carries a substantially harsher prison triad of five, eight, or ten years. A PC §288 prosecution often involves special evidentiary and sentencing issues that require close attention from the outset.
Potential Consequences. PC §288(a) is often charged alongside related offenses, but the distinctions matter. Penal Code section 288.5 addresses continuous sexual abuse of a child when the prosecution alleges three or more qualifying acts over at least three months involving a child under 14; it has its own six-, twelve-, or sixteen-year sentencing triad. Penal Code section 288(c)(1) concerns lewd acts involving a child who is 14 or 15 when the defendant is at least 10 years older, and it is generally a wobbler. Penetration allegations may lead to charges under PC §288.7, PC §269, or PC §289, depending on the facts and the child’s age. In Los Angeles County, LAPD or LASD investigations may include forensic interviews, child-protection referrals, electronic-device warrants, and delayed-report allegations before the District Attorney decides what counts to file.
05 — Defense Strategies
How Rubin Law Defends Lewd Acts with Minor California Charges
Rubin Law, P.C. attacks the elements of PC §288 and drives outcomes that avoid conviction where possible.
Challenge Sexual Intent
PC §288(a) does not criminalize every physical contact with a child. The prosecution must prove that the touching was committed with the intent to arouse, appeal to, or gratify sexual desire. That intent may be inferred from circumstances, but it cannot be presumed merely because the allegation concerns a child or because contact occurred. A defense investigation focuses on the setting, purpose, duration, location of contact, witness observations, prior statements, and any innocent explanation consistent with the evidence. Caregiving, hygiene, medical, accidental, or nonsexual family contact can be legally significant when the surrounding facts do not establish the required sexual purpose beyond a reasonable doubt.
U.S. Const. amend. IV
Test the Child Interview and Disclosure Process
Many PC §288 cases depend heavily on a child’s out-of-court disclosure and later forensic interview. The defense should obtain and analyze recordings, notes, referral materials, interview protocols, prior accounts, and communications among parents, school personnel, social workers, police, and medical providers. Repeated questioning, leading prompts, interviewer assumptions, contamination from adult discussions, and changes in wording can affect reliability without accusing the child of deliberate fabrication. A careful timeline may show that important details emerged only after suggestion or repeated interviews. The defense can use those weaknesses in cross-examination and, where appropriate, litigate whether particular statements are admissible under California’s hearsay rules.
17 CCR §1219.3
Expose Inconsistencies and Lack of Corroboration
California law does not require physical evidence or an eyewitness for a PC §288 conviction, so the absence of corroboration alone is not a complete defense. It can nevertheless be central where the accusation is delayed, accounts materially differ, or objective evidence conflicts with the claimed circumstances. The defense compares the allegation to school attendance, work schedules, travel records, messages, photographs, residence layouts, medical records, phone data, and the opportunity for other adults to observe events. The issue is not whether every detail is perfect; it is whether discrepancies concern time, place, access, conduct, reporting, or other facts that bear on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A credible reasonable doubt defense is often built from the full record, not one isolated inconsistency.
NHTSA SFST
Litigate Improper Searches and Statements
Investigators may seek phones, computers, cloud accounts, text messages, DNA samples, or statements during a PC §288 investigation. The defense evaluates whether a warrant was supported by probable cause and sufficiently particular, whether officers exceeded the warrant’s scope, and whether a warrant exception actually applied. It also reviews whether any custodial interrogation complied with Miranda v. Arizona and whether a statement was voluntary. Evidence obtained through an unlawful search or an inadmissible statement may be challenged through a motion to suppress under Penal Code section 1538.5 or other appropriate evidentiary motions. Excluding a device extraction, message history, or allegedly incriminating interview statement can materially change the prosecution’s leverage and proof.
VC §23152
Oppose Propensity-Evidence Overreach
Sex-offense cases raise distinctive evidence issues because Evidence Code section 1108 can permit the prosecution to offer evidence of other sexual offenses to support an inference of disposition. Admission is not automatic. The court must still assess undue prejudice, confusion, remoteness, similarity, and consumption of time under Evidence Code section 352. The defense can challenge whether an alleged prior event qualifies, whether its proof is reliable, and whether its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value. The same careful review applies to uncharged conduct, inflammatory digital material, and expert testimony that strays from permissible topics. Keeping a trial focused on the charged allegation rather than collateral accusations protects the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair adjudication.
17 CCR §1219.1
Develop a Fact-Specific Resolution Strategy
PC §288(a) is not eligible for misdemeanor reduction, and a conviction has severe mandatory consequences. Still, early defense work can affect charging, count selection, bail conditions, and negotiation. Counsel may present exculpatory records, witness information, chronology analysis, and legal defects to the assigned prosecutor before filing or before a preliminary hearing. If the evidence presents genuine proof problems, the goal may be a dismissal, a reduction to an offense that accurately fits the evidence, or an alternative resolution that avoids an unsupported PC §288 conviction. Mitigation does not replace a factual defense, particularly in a serious felony case, but documented background information, treatment history, lack of prior record, and compliance with court orders can be important in bail, sentencing, and disposition discussions.
VC §23103.5
Constitutional Sources: Fourth Amendment — U.S. Constitution
Questions
Frequently Asked — Lewd Acts with Minor California
What does the prosecutor have to prove under PC §288(a)?
To prove Penal Code section 288(a), the prosecution must establish that the defendant willfully committed a lewd or lascivious act on the body, or any part or member, of a child under 14, and did so with the intent to arouse, appeal to, or gratify the sexual desires of the defendant or the child. The alleged contact need not involve penetration, injury, nudity, or skin-to-skin touching. Contact through clothing can qualify. The prosecution must still prove sexual intent beyond a reasonable doubt; an accidental, routine, medical, hygiene-related, or otherwise nonsexual touching is not automatically a PC §288(a) violation. The precise words of the accusation, the context, and the reliability of the evidence all matter.
What is the punishment for lewd acts with a child under 14?
A conviction under PC §288(a) is a felony carrying a state-prison triad of three, six, or eight years. It is generally a violent felony under PC §667.5(c)(6), which can affect custody credits and future sentencing exposure. It also generally requires lifetime sex-offender registration under PC §290.006. The consequences can extend well beyond incarceration, including restrictive probation or parole conditions, firearms consequences, employment and professional-license barriers, immigration risks for noncitizens, and serious effects in custody or dependency proceedings. If the prosecution alleges force, violence, duress, menace, or fear, it may charge PC §288(b)(1), a different offense with a five-, eight-, or ten-year prison triad.
Can a child’s consent be a defense to a PC §288 charge?
No. A child under 14 cannot legally consent in a way that defeats a charge under PC §288(a). The prosecution does not have to prove force, physical resistance, or lack of consent for the basic offense. That rule does not excuse the prosecution from proving the actual statutory elements: a willful lewd or lascivious act involving the child’s body and the required intent to arouse, appeal to, or gratify sexual desire. Whether the child appeared willing may be relevant to evaluating the account in a particular case, but it is not a legal consent defense. Force or duress allegations can instead affect whether the prosecution pursues the more severely punished offense in PC §288(b)(1).
Can I be charged if the allegation is old and there is no physical evidence?
Yes. PC §288 cases are often reported after a substantial delay, and California law does not require DNA, an injury, an eyewitness, or a medical finding to file or prove the charge. The applicable statute of limitations depends on the date of the alleged offense, the victim’s age, reporting history, and amendments to California law over time. Some child-sex-offense allegations may be prosecuted long after the alleged conduct, and some may have no limitations period under Penal Code section 799.05. A delayed report can also create important defense issues: faded memories, unavailable witnesses, changed accounts, lost records, and the inability to test the allegation against contemporaneous evidence. Those issues require prompt preservation and investigation.
Will I have a preliminary hearing in an LA County PC §288 case?
In a felony PC §288 case, the usual path in Los Angeles County includes arraignment in the Superior Court, bail and protective-order litigation, discovery, pretrial conferences, and a preliminary hearing unless the case is resolved or an indictment is returned by a grand jury. At the preliminary hearing, the judge decides whether there is sufficient cause to hold the defendant to answer on the charged offenses. The standard is lower than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but the hearing can expose weaknesses in witness accounts, hearsay foundations, forensic evidence, and the prosecution’s theory. After a hold order, the prosecution files an information and the case proceeds toward motions, negotiation, or trial. Early representation is important because evidence and witness information can be lost quickly; Rubin Law, P.C. can be reached at (213) 723-2337.
Is PC §288(a) a wobbler or eligible for diversion?
PC §288(a) is not a wobbler; it is a felony offense. It is not eligible for misdemeanor treatment under Penal Code section 17(b), and ordinary pretrial diversion is generally not available for a charge requiring sex-offender registration under PC §290.006. Mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36 also excludes many serious offenses, including offenses for which the defendant is required to register under PC §290, subject to the statute’s terms. A defendant should not assume that counseling, a lack of prior record, or family support creates a diversion right. Those factors may still be relevant to bail, sentencing advocacy, and negotiations, but the legal options depend on the specific charge, evidence, criminal history, and posture of the case.
Available 24/7 — Free Consultation
Charged with Lewd Acts with Minor California? Call Rubin Law Now.
Daniel S. Rubin defends clients facing sex crimes charges throughout Los Angeles County. Your first consultation is free and confidential.