People v. Harzan

── People v. Harzan ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/16/26 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, G064798 v. (Super. Ct. No. 20WF1838) JAN CURTIS HARZAN, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Terri K. Flynn-Peister, Judge. Reversed. Quinn & Dworakowski and David Dworakowski for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Robin Urbanski, Donald W. Ostertag and Flavio Nominati, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Appellant.  Over a nine-day period in 2020, defendant Jan Curtis Harzan, then age 65, exchanged sexually explicit electronic messages with an undercover police detective whom he believed was a 13-year-old girl named Brianna. At Harzan’s trial for communicating with and arranging to meet a minor with the intent to commit a sexual offense, the trial court ruled there was sufficient evidence to support jury instructions on the defense of entrapment. However, the court ruled that if Harzan decided to pursue that defense, it would allow the prosecution to introduce evidence Harzan had engaged in sexual misconduct nearly 50 years earlier, when he was in his teens. To prevent the jury from hearing that highly prejudicial evidence, Harzan surrendered his right to present an entrapment defense, and he ultimately was convicted as charged. On appeal, Harzan contends: (1) the trial court should have excluded the prior misconduct evidence altogether, irrespective of the entrapment issue, and its failure to do so violated his constitutional right to present a defense; and (2) there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions. Although we find Harzan’s convictions are supported by substantial evidence, we conclude the trial court prejudicially violated Harzan’s constitutional rights by requiring him to give up his entrapment defense in order to keep his prior sexual misconduct out of evidence. We therefore reverse the judgment. STATEMENT OF FACTS In May 2020, Harzan posted an ad on Craigslist under a category called “Missed Connections.” Entitled “Missing my young friend,” the ad stated: “GL older M here looking to find my young coed friend I use[d] to hang out with. We would have such good times together. Is that you?” 2  Harzan’s ad caught the attention of Huntington Beach Vice Detective Joseph Baugh, who specializes in internet-related crimes against children. Baugh believed the ad’s repeated use of the word “young” indicated the person posting it might be trying to contact minors for illicit purposes. So, on June 25, 2020, he responded to the post using an undercover email account. Pretending to be a girl named “Brianna,” Baugh asked Harzan what “GL” meant and what he did for fun. Harzan replied: “GL means ‘Good Looking’ which is of course in the eye of the beholder. LOL I am looking for a fun little playmate and someone I can mentor. What are you looking for? Do you have a pic? Yours gets mine.” “Brianna” did not respond to that message. The next day, Harzan emailed a photograph of himself to “Brianna,” along with the following message: “Would you like to talk? I can give you my cell number or we could meet somewhere and talk. A pic would be nice. Here’s mine. I’m available all afternoon today.” When “Brianna” did not reply, Harzan sent her several follow-up messages, saying he was generous and asking if she would like to meet. Still, she did not reply until four days later, on June 30, 2020. That day, the following email exchange occur