Marr. of G.
D070495M
| Cal. Ct. App. | May 31, 2017Background
- Valerie (wife) sought a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against Louis (husband) during marital dissolution, alleging he caused physical injuries in several confrontations.
- Valerie presented photographs and a doctor’s report documenting bruises, a bitten thumb, a scraped knee, and a bruised chin.
- Louis denied being the aggressor and testified Valerie repeatedly grabbed or damaged his electronic devices (laptop, phone) and initiated physical struggles to take them.
- Two illustrative incidents: (1) August 2015 bedroom struggle over a laptop where Valerie grabbed Louis, spat in his face, covered his mouth/nose, and Louis “nipped” her thumb to free himself; (2) November 2015 fights over a cell phone in the garage and later in the house that ended when Valerie fell or Louis could not resist due to a pinched nerve.
- Trial court found Louis’ use of force was a reasonable response to Valerie’s property- and person-directed aggression and denied the DVRO; Valerie appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Valerie) | Defendant's Argument (Louis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether injuries intentionally or recklessly caused by respondent automatically constitute “abuse” under Fam. Code § 6203(a)(1) for DVRO purposes | Because Louis intentionally or recklessly caused bodily injury, the statute requires a DVRO without regard to preceding conduct | Louis acted in reasonable self-defense/defense of property; injuries resulted from his justified response to Valerie’s aggressions | Court held that proof of injury alone does not mandate a finding of abuse where respondent acted reasonably in self-defense or to protect property; affirmed denial of DVRO |
| Whether trial court properly weighed whether force was excessive | Valerie: Louis used excessive force and thus was culpable | Louis: force was the minimum necessary to free himself or protect property | Court found factual findings that force was not excessive are supported by substantial evidence; allocation of reasonableness is for the trier of fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Calvillo-Silva v. Home Grocery, 19 Cal.4th 714 (explains privilege to use reasonable force in defense and that excessive force remains liability)
- People v. Myers, 61 Cal.App.4th 328 (reasonable force to resist a battery may cause injury to initial aggressor without criminal culpability)
- J.J. v. M.F., 223 Cal.App.4th 968 (applies family-code mutual restraining-order provision to bar restraining orders where petitioner acted in reasonable self-defense)