Should There Be a Payout in Sinatra Jr. Case?

Should crime pay in California?

The Court of Appeal has set the stage for the state’s first legal test of its so-called Son of Sam law, intended to keep criminals from making money from their crimes through book and movie deals.

The 2nd District of the state Court of Appeal has scheduled a hearing for May 26 to tackle these thorny issues in a case involving the 1963 kidnapping of Frank Sinatra Jr.

Under the law as it stands, Sinatra, as the crime victim, would receive any money paid to his abductors for their book and movie rights.

Citing the state’s 1986 version of New York’s Son of Sam law, Sinatra convinced Superior Court Judge Stanley M. Weisberg in August to issue a court order blocking Columbia Pictures from paying one of the kidnappers, 55-year-old real estate salesman Barry Keenan, for his movie rights.

Keenan appealed and a three-judge panel reversed Weisberg on 1st Amendment grounds. Keenan’s lawyer, Stephen F. Rohde, argued that the U.S. Supreme Court--in a 1991 case involving mob figure Henry Hill--found New York’s Son of Sam law unconstitutional. A result of that decision was the film “Goodfellas.”

California’s Son of Sam law, formally known as Civil Code Section 2225, is ripe for a challenge, Rohde said. “This is a significant case,” he added. “It raises all the questions--Should crime pay? Should criminals profit from their crimes?”

YO: Former O.J. Simpson prosecutor Christopher Darden is switching to the civil side of the law. He has been signed to represent an independent film company engaged in a nasty legal battle with the brothers Stallone, Sylvester and Frank.

The company, run by brother and sister Alan and Diane Mehrez, claims the Stallones sabotaged its film, “The Good Life,” after Frank tried to take over the project. Then, the Mehrezes allege, the brothers Stallone tried to drive them out of Hollywood.

The Stallones, in separate lawsuits, allege that the Mehrezes breached their contracts for the film about golfing hit men. Sly Stallone also charges that the producers exploited his star power to hype the film.

The producers’ court papers allege that the lesser-known Stallone “refused to complete his acting obligations . . . and threatened to kill anyone who stood in for him.”

Sounding for all the world like a B-movie bent-nose, Frank was captured on audiotape allegedly saying things like: “You know they terminated my contract. I don’t think so. I’ll terminate their company.”

Yo. Will Chris Darden be able to stay in the ring with the Stallones?

TABLOID L.A.: Elizabeth Taylor and Larry Fortensky, ex-hubbo No. 7 (Uh-huh: Nicky Hilton, Michael Wilding, Mike Todd, Eddie Fisher, Richard Burton (twice), John Warner and Fortensky) owe the National Enquirer $423,600 for attorneys’ fees, an appeals court has ruled.

La Liz and her 12-stepping ex, who has other legal woes of his own, unsuccessfully sued the supermarket tabloid for libel and invasion of privacy in connection with a story headlined: “Liz’ Neighbor Flees Home After Larry Threatens to Break His Legs.”

A Los Angeles trial court found in 1994 that the story was protected from the libel action because it quoted the gist of actual court documents. Later, the Enquirer sought to recover the cost of defending itself against what it termed a frivolous nuisance suit.

Taylor and Fortensky appealed and appealed again, to no avail. Now, it’s time to pay the piper.

“Another victory for the forces of light in the tabloid wars,” mused the Enquirer’s Washington-based attorney, Gerson A. Zweifach.

Meanwhile, “Little House on the Prairie” star Melissa Gilbert has settled her libel suit against the Enquirer. The dispute concerned an interview Gilbert’s former husband gave the Enquirer in which he portrayed her as a “deadbeat mom.”

The case went away after Gilbert met face to face with Enquirer editor Steve Coz. The settlement’s financial terms, if any, were not disclosed.

KILL THE WABBIT?: The dispute between Playboy and its 1981 Playmate of the Year has entered the next level. Terri Welles accuses the Bunny empire in U.S. District Court in San Diego of defaming her and unlawfully interfering with her Web site business.

Playboy, claiming it alone owns the rights to the title Playmate of the Year, sued Welles for copyright infringement in February. In May, a federal judge sided with Welles, saying she could keep the title.

“Much like Academy Award winners, all the crowned Miss Americas, and the Heisman Trophy winners, Playboy Playmates are given a title which becomes part of their identity and adds value to their name,” U.S. District Court Judge Judith Keep wrote at the time.

Playboy’s state Supreme Court appeal was rejected in October, but the company since has filed an amended complaint.

Welles charges that Playboy, which runs its own Web site, is making an example of her to discourage others from fleeing the hutch to launch their own businesses.

GONE TO THE BIG HOUSE: Deputy Dist. Atty. Jeffrey Semow, coming off a big loss in the Susan McDougal embezzlement case, has been transferred from Santa Monica to the downtown Criminal Courts Building. As usual, it’s being billed as a routine move.

Here’s the dish: We’re told Semow was able to delay the inevitable for two years while he built his failed case against Whitewater’s mum martyr. Now the gig is up. As anyone who has spent even a nanosecond around the courthouses of Los Angeles knows, Santa Monica is a plum assignment, while the life of a downtown calendar deputy is hard time in the big house.

Times staff writer Henry Weinstein contributed to this column.