People v. Clark
201 Cal. App. 4th 235
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Jury found defendant not guilty of assault with a deadly weapon against wife and not guilty of assault likely to cause great bodily injury against his 14-year-old son; convicted him of simple assault for both wife and son and of felony child abuse (273a, subd. (a)) of the son; defendant admitted a prior prison term under 667.5, subd. (b).
- Trial court sentenced to state prison for felony child abuse and recidivist enhancement, with concurrent term for wife’s assault and a stayed concurrent term for the son’s assault; no-visitation order against the son under 1202.05.
- On appeal, defendant challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence for felony child abuse under circumstances likely to produce great bodily harm and criminal negligence instruction issue, (2) unanimity instruction for the child abuse count, (3) self-defense instruction for child abuse and simple child abuse, (4) right of reasonable parental discipline for the assault counts, and (5) authority to impose the no-visitation order.
- The appellate court rejected the sufficiency challenge; agreed that self-defense was wrongly limited to the assault count and that parental discipline defense should have applied to the assault count, but found these instructional errors harmless.
- Unpublished portions addressed and found harmless the lack of a general-intent requirement for direct child abuse and rejected need for unanimity instruction on the child abuse count; struck down the no-visitation order and ordered an amended abstract of judgment reflecting the low term for felony child abuse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for 273a(a) circumstances likely to produce great bodily harm | People argues evidence supported a substantial danger of great bodily harm | Defendant maintains evidence shows no such likelihood | Sufficient evidence supported the conviction |
| Unanimity instruction for the child abuse count | Not explicitly argued in scenario; issue raised by defense | Needed unanimity instruction | No unanimity instruction required for the child abuse count |
| Self-defense instruction for child abuse and simple child abuse | Self-defense available only for assault, not child abuse | Self-defense should apply to child abuse as well | Self-defense can be a defense to direct child abuse; error harmless as to child abuse count |
| Right of parental discipline and its applicability to assault | Parental discipline defense limited to child abuse | Defense should apply to assault as well | Parental discipline defense should apply to assault; error harmless given verdicts and self-defense ruling |
| No-visitation order authority | No-visitation order imposed | Authority to impose no-visitation order questionable | No-visitation order was error; strike it from judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Racy, 148 Cal.App.4th 1327 (Cal.App.4th 2007) (circumstances/conditions may support felony elder abuse; substantial evidence standard applied)
- People v. Sargent, 19 Cal.4th 1206 (Cal. 1999) (circumstances/conditions may include victim/defendant characteristics and location; jury determines likelihood of great bodily harm)
- People v. Whitehurst, 9 Cal.App.4th 1045 (Cal.App.4th 1992) (parental discipline/right to punish a child defenses; reasonableness framework)
- People v. Carter, 60 Cal.App.4th 752 (Cal.App.4th 1998) (harmless error assessment for instructional deficiencies)
- People v. Dyer, 45 Cal.3d 26 (Cal. 1988) (harmless error standard for instructional errors)