Have you been accused of a crime?
Call for a free consultation 24/7 toll-free:
(888) 744-7730

California Penal Code Section 242 - Simple Battery

California Penal Code § 242 – Simple Battery

California Penal Code [CPC] §242Simple Battery – California Penal Code Section 242 makes it illegal to use willful and unlawful force on another person.

Conviction under CPC §242 permits up to six months in a county jail and/or a fine of up to $2,000.

What Does California Penal Code §242 [Simple Battery] Prohibit?

In sum, to be guilty of Simple Battery under CPC §242, you must:

  • Touch someone in a harmful or offensive manner; AND,
  • Have no legal excuse.

Defining “Simple Battery” Under California Penal Code §242

To convict you under CPC §242, the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

  • WILLFULLY AND UNLAWFULLY TOUCHED: You willfully[1] and unlawfully touched someone; AND,
  • HARMFUL OR OFFENSIVE: The touching occurred in a harmful or offensive manner;[2] AND,
  • NO LEGAL EXCUSE: You did not act in self-defense or in defense of someone else or while reasonably disciplining a child.

Note: The touching can be done simply by causing an object or another person to touch the victim.

Example: Defendant Dan goes to Westwood because a new climate agreement is being created there. A classical art exhibit is at the Getty Museum at the same time. Dan expresses his views on the climate agreement by going to the Getty and smearing cake on the “Mona Lisa.”[3] He is arrested and charged under §242. Dan believes he should be excused on First Amendment grounds. Should he be convicted?

Conclusion: Dan willfully and unlawfully touched a painting in a manner which would harm it. However, whether he had a legal excuse is irrelevant. Simple Battery requires touching someone, either directly or indirectly. Dan only touched a painting of a (long-dead) person. Therefore, Dan should be acquitted. Whether he also deserved First Amendment protection is not a question which must be resolved.

Penalties For Simple Battery Under CPC §242

If you're convicted of Simple Battery under CPC §242, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to six (6) months in a county jail; OR,
  • A fine of up to $2,000 (two-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both jail time and a fine.[4]

As stated previously, conviction under CPC §242 permits up to six (6) months in a county jail and/or a fine of up to $2,000 (two-thousand dollars).[5] Misdemeanor Probation, permitting you to serve at least part of your sentence outside custody, may also be available.

Defenses Against California Penal Code §242 – Simple Battery

Three common defenses against a charge of Simple Battery under CPC §242 are:

You Didn't Act Willfully

Example: Defendant Damian suffers from a muscle disorder that causes him to do things like involuntarily lash out his arms at unforeseen moments. It is at such a moment that Victim Vinton is walking past Damian. Damian strikes Vinton. He concludes that Damian attacked him. Vinton has Damian charged under §242. Damian insists he can't be guilty, on these facts. Should he be acquitted?  

Conclusion: Damian struck Vinton in a manner which Vinton considered so harmful or offensive that he had Damian charged for it. These are elements of the crime. But Damian only struck Vinton because of a muscle disorder which causes him to act involuntarily. Thus, Damian is correct. He didn't act willfully.

You Were Defending Yourself Or Someone Else

Example: Defendant Dee hears that Victim Veronica has been harassing Dee's Sister. Sister is a great deal smaller than Veronica. Dee one day confronts Veronica while Veronica is attacking Sister. Dee puts Veronica in a headlock and makes Veronica promise to leave Sister alone. Veronica does so. Then she reports Dee and has her arrested for violating §242. Dee insists she had to defend Sister. Is Dee guilty?

Conclusion: Given that Sister would likely have been unable to defend herself against the much larger Veronica, Dee had the right to use proportionate force to defend Sister for as long as was necessary against an immediate threat or use of force by Veronica. The facts do not say Dee did more than stop Veronica and elicit a promise not to attack Sister. Dee is innocent. She was defending someone else.

You Were Reasonably Discipling A Child

Example: Defendant Devers goes to an LA park with Victim Vika, his five-year-old daughter. Vika wants to go home. She throws a tantrum. She hurls her food at passersby. She screams. She even kicks a dog. Devers eventually concludes that reasoning with her isn't working and spanks her once. Vika begins to cry. Witness sees all this and reports Devers for a battery under CPC §242. Should Devers be convicted?  

Conclusion: Devers willfully struck Vika, who cried in objection to the contact. These are elements of the crime. But Vika was behaving very badly. Devers tried to reason with her. Vika wasn't responding positively. Devers then used force in a very limited way, spanking Vika just once. Likely this would be considered acceptable under the circumstances. Devers is innocent. He was reasonably discipling a child.  

Related Offenses

Note: The crimes below are described generally as “related” because they're frequently charged with CPC §242 and/or have common elements the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

The California Penal Code includes several offenses related to Simple Battery: Battery On A Peace Officer (CPC §243(c)(2)), Battery Causing Serious Bodily Injury (CPC §243(d)), Domestic Battery (CPC §243(e)(1)), Sexual Battery (CPC §243.4(a)), Elder Abuse (CPC §368), Simple Assault (CPC §242), Assault With A Deadly Weapon (CPC §245(a)(1)), Domestic Violence (CPC §273.5(a)), Child Abuse (CPC §273d(a)), Child Endangerment (CPC §273a(a)), Assault With A Firearm (CPC §245(a)(2)), Mayhem (CPC §203), Murder (CPC §187), Voluntary Manslaughter (CPC §192(a)), Involuntary Manslaughter (CPC §192(b)) and Torture (CPC §206).

Battery On A Peace Officer

Battery On A Peace Officer (CPC §243(c)(2)) occurs when a battery is committed against any one of a long list of officers, technicians, medical personnel or responders of various kinds when engaged in their duties. The law also applies to peace officers employed in a private capacity as part-time security guards. You must know (or reasonably should know) that the victim is an official performing his or her duties at the time of the contact. Additionally, you must injure the person.

CPC §243(c)(2) is a “wobbler”[6] offense, meaning that prosecutors can charge it either as a Felony or a Misdemeanor, depending upon the unique facts of your case.  If you're convicted of the Felony form, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to three (3) years in state prison; OR,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both imprisonment and a fine.[7]

More information can be found in the Assaulting A Police Officer section of the Kann California Law Group's website. If you have questions, contact any of the Kann California Law Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call goes directly to a lawyer. It's our guarantee.

California Jury Instructions – Battery On A Peace Officer

To convict you under CPC §243(c)(2), the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You willfully and unlawfully touched a peace officer in a harmful or offensive manner. The peace officer was performing official duties at the time. Finally, when you acted, you knew, or reasonably should've known, that the victim was a peace officer who was performing duties.

Example: Defendant Dick places evidence of a crime inside a car and sets the car afire. He knows that firefighters will not be able to reach the blaze until the vehicle is gutted. But Victim Verne, a nearby resident, sees the fire and goes to extinguish it. Dick then attacks Verne and knocks him unconscious. Verne awakens in a hospital and reports Dick. He's arrested and charged under §243(c)(2). Is Dick guilty?

Conclusion: Dick willfully and unlawfully put Verne in the hospital. Verne was acting as a firefighter at the time. Dick knew this, which is why Dick attacked Verne. These would be elements of the crime. But merely acting as a firefighter doesn't make Verne a firefighter. He has to be an actual firefighter to be protected under the statute. Thus, while Dick is guilty of a battery, he isn't guilty under CPC §243(c)(2).   

Battery Causing Great Bodily Injury

California's statute forbidding Battery Causing Great Bodily Injury (CPC §243(d)) applies when anyone commits a battery resulting in serious injury.

Since Battery Causing Great Bodily Injury can be prosecuted as a Felony or a Misdemeanor, depending on the facts of the case, CPC §243(d) is considered a “wobbler”[8] crime. If you're convicted of the felony form, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to four (4) years in a state prison;[9] OR,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both imprisonment and a fine.[10]

More information can be found in the Battery Causing Great Bodily Injury section of the Kann California Law Group's website. If you have questions, contact any of the Kann California Law Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call goes directly to a lawyer. It's guaranteed.

California Jury Instructions – Battery Causing Great Bodily Injury

To convict you under CPC §243(d), the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You willfully and unlawfully touched someone in a harmful or offensive manner. That person suffered serious bodily injury as a result of the force used. Finally, you did not act in self-defense or in defense of someone else or while reasonably disciplining a child.

Example: Defendant Dale gets into an argument with Victim Victor. When Victor tries to escape in a car, Dale slams his fists onto the windshield as it passes. Being very strong, the force from the blow breaks the glass. Shards fly into Victor's face. Victor loses an eye. Victor has Dale arrested for committing a violation of CPC §243(d). Dale insists that he can't be guilty. Is Dale correct or should he be convicted? 

Conclusion: Dale made objectionable contact with an item so closely connected to Victor that it could be considered an extension of his body (his car). This resulted in glass flying into Victor's face, a foreseeable consequence of Dale's act - and, therefore, one for which Dale is responsible. Then Victor suffered serious injury. Dale had no legal excuse. These are the elements of the crime. Dale should be convicted.  

Domestic Battery

Domestic Battery (CPC §243(e)(1)) involves battery that is committed against a spouse, a cohabitant, a parent of a child, a former spouse, a fiancé, a fiancée, or any person with whom one currently has, or has had, a relationship.

If you're convicted of Domestic Battery, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to one (1) year in a county jail; OR,
  • A fine of up to $2,000 (two-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both jail time and a fine.[11]

More information can be found in the Domestic Violence Under The California Penal Code section of the Kann California Law Group's website. If you have questions, contact any of the Kann California Law Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call goes directly to a lawyer. It's always a guarantee.

California Jury Instructions – Domestic Battery

To convict you under CPC §243(e)(1), the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You willfully and unlawfully touched a person in a harmful or offensive manner. That person is your spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, fiancée, fiancée, or a person with whom you currently have, or previously had, a dating or engagement relationship, or the mother or father your child. Finally, you did not act in self-defense or in defense of someone else.

Example: Defendant Deena is angry with Victim Vic, her boyfriend. She wants to retaliate against Vic for things he said in an argument with her one day. That night, Deena urinates on Vic's side of the bed.[12] Vic is furious when he learns of this. He has Deena arrested and charged under CPC §243(e)(1). Deena insists that there is no way she can be guilty. Is she correct or should she be convicted of the charge?

Conclusion: Deena touched the bed she shared with Vic. She did so in an offensive manner. Vic is Deena's boyfriend. She did not act in self-defense or defense of another. These are elements of the crime. But the facts do not say that Vic was in, or even near, the bed when Deena soiled it. This would be necessary for Deena to have “touched” Vic under the circumstances. Deena, it follows, is correct.

Sexual Battery

Sexual Battery (CPC §243.4(a)) occurs whenever anyone touches an intimate part of another person's body while one of the persons involved is restrained. The touching has to be against the will of the person touched and it has to occur for sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse.

Since Sexual Battery can be prosecuted as a Felony or a Misdemeanor, depending on the facts of the case, CPC §243.4(a) is considered a “wobbler”[13] crime. If you're convicted of the felony form, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to four (4) years in a state prison; OR,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both imprisonment and a fine;[14] AND,
  • Sex Offender registration for the remainder of your life.[15]

More information can be found in the Sexual Battery section of the Kann California Law Group's website. If you have questions, contact any of the Kann California Law Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call goes directly to a lawyer. That's a guarantee.

California Jury Instructions – Sexual Battery

To convict you under CPC §243.4(a), the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You or an accomplice unlawfully restrained a person. While that person was restrained, you touched, or caused that person to touch, an intimate part of that person's body or while the person was restrained, you caused that person to touch his or her own intimate part or caused that person to touch the intimate part of you or someone else. The touching was done against the person's will. Finally, the touching was done for the specific purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse.

Example: Defendant Dominica organizes abusive hazing for a UCLA sorority. Victim Velma has applied for membership. Dominica orders Velma to remove Velma's clothing, bind herself to a chair, and pleasure herself while Dominica films all for the other sorority sisters. Velma freely consents. But Velma decides next day that she was abused. She reports Dominica for violating §243.4(a). Is Dominica guilty?

Conclusion: Dominica expressed her wish that Velma touch herself for a hazing incident which was filmed. This was “abusive hazing”; the touching was, therefore, accomplished for sexual abuse. These would be elements of the crime. But Velma voluntarily restrained herself. She agreed to strip. She also consented “freely” to touching herself. These facts do not support conviction. Dominica is not guilty.[16]

Elder Abuse

Elder Abuse (CPC §368(b)(1)) involves willfully inflicting physical or emotional abuse, neglect, or endangerment to an elderly person or dependent adult. The crime is related to Simple Battery because elder abuse often involves unwanted touching, permitting the prosecution to charge you with both in the same trial.

Since Elder Abuse can be prosecuted as a Felony or a Misdemeanor, depending on the facts of the case, CPC §368(b)(1) is considered a “wobbler”[17] crime. If you're convicted of the felony form, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to four (4) years in a state prison; OR,
  • A fine of up to $6,000 (six-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both imprisonment and a fine.[18]

More information can be found in the Elder Abuse section of the Kann California Law Group's website. If you have questions, contact any of the Kann California Law Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call goes directly to a lawyer. It's guaranteed.

California Jury Instructions – Elder Abuse

To convict you under CPC §368(b)(1), the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You willfully inflicted unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering on an elder or dependent adult or you allowed someone, whose conduct you had a duty to supervise and control, to inflict unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering on an elder or dependent adult or you had care or custody of an elder or dependent adult and willfully caused or permitted that person or his or her health to be injured or you had care or custody of and elder or dependent adult and willfully caused or permitted that person to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health was endangered. The victim is or was an elder or a dependent adult. When you acted, you knew or reasonably should have known that the victim was an elder or a dependent adult. If applicable, you had a legal duty to supervise and control the conduct of the person or persons who caused or inflicted unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering on the elder or dependent adult, but failed to supervise or control that conduct. Finally, if applicable to the charge, you were criminally negligent when you caused or permitted the elder or dependent adult to suffer, or be injured, or be endangered.

Example: Defendant Dominic knows that Victim Vern, a dependent adult, resides in an assisted living home and rides an LA bus to work. He begins to ride as well. Then he ‘befriends' Vern and convinces Vern to give him contact information which Dominic uses to steal what little money Vern has in his bank account. Now he faces charges under §368(b)(1). Is Dominic guilty, or is this not “abuse,” as he insists?

Conclusion: Dominic willfully exploited a dependent adult by stealing money from Vern after tricking him into disclosing personal information. He knew that Vern resided in an assisted living home; thus, he knew Vern was a dependent adult. This is illegal abuse. But Vern had to be charged under Subpart (d) to be guilty of this kind of exploitation.[19]  He has not been charged properly. Thus, Dominic is not guilty.

Simple Assault

California law on Assault (CPC §240) makes it unlawful to attempt to commit violence against another person. The actual Assault needn't involve touching the victim and the prosecution doesn't have to prove that any touching occurred. However, even slight touching (including touching someone through the clothing) can be enough for a Simple Assault. The touching can also occur indirectly. The crime is related to Simple Battery because battery often follows assault, permitting charges of committing both crimes in the same trial.  

If you're convicted of Simple Assault, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to six (6) months in the county jail; OR,
  • A fine of up to $1,000 (one-thousand dollars); OR
  • Both imprisonment and a fine.[20]

You can find more information in the California Assault Crimes section of the Kann California Law Group's website. Feel free to contact the Kann California Law Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call will go directly to a lawyer. We always guarantee it.

California Criminal Jury Instructions – Simple Assault

To convict you under CPC §240, the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You did something that would directly and probably result in applying force to another person. You did it willfully. When you did it, a reasonable person would've realized the act would result in applying force. Finally, you had the present ability to apply force at the time of the act.

Example: Defendant Dallas believes in what he calls “the classic pranks.” One of his favorites is “Flinch!”, in which he walks up to an unsuspecting person, pulls a punch, and, when the victim goes to throw up a defense, he shouts, “Flinch!” He does so one day to Victim Vinnie, pretending to punch Vinnie only a few inches from Vinnie's face. Vinnie files a complaint under CPC §240. Should Dallas be found guilty?

Conclusion: Dallas willfully did something that he believed would make Vinnie anticipate a direct application of force. Furthermore, the facts do not suggest that either lacks reason, so Dallas would've realized that his own act would result in applying force. Finally, Dallas was only inches from Vinnie, giving Dallas the present ability to apply force. These are the elements of the crime. Dallas is guilty.  

Assault With A Deadly Weapon

California's law regarding Assault With A Deadly Weapon (CPC §245(a)(1)) applies whenever anyone assaults another person with a deadly weapon, or a weapon other than a firearm, or when anyone assaults another person using force likely to produce great bodily injury.   

Since you can be charged with either a Misdemeanor or a Felony under CPC §245(a)(1), the crime is a “wobbler.”[21] If you're convicted of the Felony form, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to four (4) years in a state prison; OR,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both a fine and imprisonment.[22]

Assault With A Deadly Weapon may also counted as a ‘serious felony' for purposes of California's “Three Strikes” system.[23] If you accrue three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five (25) years in state prison.[24]

You can always find more information in the Assault With A Deadly Weapon section of the Kann California Law Group's website. Feel free to contact the Kann California Law Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call will always go directly to a lawyer. It's always guaranteed.

California Criminal Jury Instructions – Assault With A Deadly Weapon

To convict you under CPC §245(a)(1), the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You did an act with a deadly weapon other than a firearm that by its nature would directly and probably result in the application of force to a person or you did an act that by its nature would directly and probably result in the application of force to a person. The force used was likely to produce great bodily injury. You did that act willfully. When you acted, you were aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to realize that your act by its nature would directly and probably result in the application of force to someone. When you acted, you also had the present ability to apply force likely to produce great bodily injury to a person. Finally, you did not act in self-defense or in defense of someone else.

Example: Defendant Dom is pitching in an amateur softball game. He hits Victim Van in the face with a pitch. Van charges at Dom. Dom prepares at first to tackle Van. But then Dom grabs Van's discarded bat and hits Van over the head as Van reaches the pitcher's mound.[25] Van is taken to the hospital with a cracked skull.  Dom has been charged under CPC §245(a)(1). Is Dom guilty, under these circumstances?

Conclusion: Dom willfully used a weapon other than a firearm to do something which would directly and probably result in use of force against Van. Hitting someone over the head with a baseball bat is likely to produce great bodily injury. Dom knew he had the ability to apply force. The question is whether he was defending himself. Dom exceeded self-defense when he escalated the battle using a bat.[26] Dom is guilty.

Domestic Violence

California Penal Code §273.5(a), the Domestic Violence law (also known as “Inflicting Traumatic Injury”), applies whenever anyone willfully inflicts corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon a spouse, a cohabitant, a fiancé or fiancée, or the mother or father of the attacker's child. For purposes of the law, people can ‘cohabit' with multiple people at different locations at the same time, but they must have substantial relationships with all and live with them all for a significant time. The law is related to Simple Battery because battery is often present in domestic violence situations, permitting the prosecution to charge you with both crimes in the same trial.

If you're convicted of Domestic Violence under §273.5(a), the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to four (4) years in a state prison; OR;
  • A fine of up to $6,000 (six-thousand dollars); OR;
  • Both a fine and imprisonment.[27]

You can always find more information in the Penal Code 273.5 section of the Kann California Law Group's website. Feel free to contact the Kann California Law Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call will always go directly to a lawyer. It's guaranteed.

California Criminal Jury Instructions – Domestic Violence

To convict you under CPC §273.5(a), the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You willfully and unlawfully inflicted a physical injury on your former spouse, former cohabitant, the mother or father of your child, or someone with whom you have, or previously had, an engagement or dating relationship. The injury resulted in a traumatic condition. Finally, you did not act in self-defense or in defense of someone else.

Example: Defendant Dick is the husband of Victim Vita. When an argument erupts between them, Vita threatens Dick with a dinner knife. Dick seizes Vita by the wrist and forces her to drop the knife. Dick's grip barely leaves a discernible mark. Nonetheless, Vita reports Dick for violating CPC §273.5(a). Is Dick guilty or does he have at least one defense, as Dick insists that he does?

Conclusion: Dick willfully inflicted injury on his spouse. But - assuming that a “barely… discernible mark” rises to the level of harm required under the statute - Dick was still defending himself against an attack with a deadly weapon when he seized Vita's wrist. Dick was entitled to use as much force as Vita, for as long as required.[28] The facts do no state that he did more than this. Dick has a defense. He is correct.

Child Abuse

California Penal Code Section 273d(a) states that, "Any person who willfully inflicts upon a child any cruel or inhuman corporal punishment or an injury resulting in a traumatic condition is guilty of a felony."[29] However, if the punishment is deemed not to have been cruel or inhuman or not to have caused the child to be in a traumatic condition, it may be reduced to or charged as a misdemeanor. The crime is related to Simple Battery because a battery can produce charges of abusing a child, permitting the prosecution to charge you with both crimes in the same trial.

Child physical abuse is a "wobbler,"[30] meaning that depending on the circumstances and criminal history of the defendant, it can be charged as either a felony or misdemeanor. If you're convicted of the felony form, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to six (6) years in a state prison; OR,
  • A fine of up to $6,000 (six-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both imprisonment and a fine.[31]

You can always find more information in the California Child Abuse Attorney section of the Kann California Law Group's website. Feel free to contact the Kann California Law Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call will always go directly to a lawyer. It's always our guarantee.

California Criminal Jury Instructions – Child Abuse

To convict you under CPC §273d(a), the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You willfully inflicted cruel or inhuman physical punishment and/or an injury on a child. The punishment and/or injury caused a traumatic physical condition to the child. Finally, when you acted, you were not reasonably disciplining the child.

Example: Defendant Deirdre does not want to use physical force to discipline Victim Veri, her daughter. Instead, she denies Veri meals whenever Veri does something to displease Deirdre. This begins to happen daily. School Nurse notices Veri becoming withdrawn and sickly and talks with Veri. Now Deidre faces charges under §273d(a). Deidre insists she avoided abuse and must be innocent. Is Deirdre guilty?

Conclusion: Deidre willfully acted to deny Veri nourishment as a generic punishment for whatever Veri did which Deirdre did not like. This policy wouldn't likely be considered a reasonable exercise of force in disciplining Veri. The result was Veri's sickliness. Veri also became “withdrawn.” What Deirdre does not understand is that virtually any injury, however minor or inflicted, can be child abuse. Deirdre is guilty.

Child Endangerment

California's Child Endangerment law (CPC §273a(a)) makes it illegal to willfully cause or permit any child to suffer, or inflict unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering on a child, having care or custody of the child, or to willfully cause or permit the child to be injured, or to willfully cause or permit the child to be placed in a situation where his or her health is endangered under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death. The crime is related to Simple Battery because Child Endangerment because battery may result in endangerment to a child's health, permitting charges of committing both crimes in the same trial.

Child Endangerment is a "wobbler,"[32] meaning that depending on the circumstances and criminal history of the defendant, it can be charged as either a felony or misdemeanor. If you're convicted of the felony form, the penalty may be:

If you're convicted of Child Endangerment, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to six (6) years in the state prison;[33] OR,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both imprisonment and a fine.[34]

You can always find more information in the California Child Endangerment Attorney section of the Kann California Law Group's website. Feel free to contact the Kann California Law Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call will always go directly to a lawyer. That's a guarantee.

California Criminal Jury Instructions – Child Endangerment

To convict you under CPC §273a(a), the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You willfully inflicted unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering on a child or you willfully caused or permitted a child to suffer unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering or you, while having care or custody of a child, willfully caused or permitted the child's person or health to be injured or you, while having care or custody of a child, willfully caused or permitted the child to be placed in a situation where the child's person or health was endangered. You inflicted pain or suffering on the child or caused or permitted the child to suffer or be injured or be endangered under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death. You were criminally negligent when you caused or permitted the child to suffer or to be injured or to be endangered. Finally, you weren't reasonably disciplining a child.

Example: Defendant Dennis brings Victim Vinny, his child, to Busy Market. Dennis and Vinnie become separated after a time. Dennis goes to the front of the store and has Employee page Vinny, who appears soon after. They're about to leave when police arrive, having been notified by Employee of the situation without Dennis's knowledge. Now he is facing a charge under §273a(a). Should Dennis be convicted?

Conclusion: Vinny being alone in Busy Market could theoretically endanger Vinny. Dennis wasn't disciplining a child. These are elements of the crime. But the facts don't state that Dennis willfully parted with his son. Nor do the facts state that the conditions were likely to cause great bodily injury or death to Vinny. Nor was Dennis criminally negligent, by that same logic. Thus, Dennis shouldn't be convicted.

Assault With A Firearm

Assault With A Firearm (CPC §245(a)(2)) involves committing an assault upon the person of another with a firearm. Assault With A Firearm is a "wobbler,"[35] meaning that depending on the circumstances and criminal history of the defendant, it can be charged as either a felony or misdemeanor.

If you're convicted of felony Assault With A Firearm, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to four (4) years; OR,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both imprisonment and a fine.[36]

Assault With A Firearm is also a ‘serious felony' for purposes of California's “Three Strikes” system.[37] If you accrue three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve at least twenty-five (25) years in state prison.[38]

California Criminal Jury Instructions – Assault With A Firearm

To convict you under CPC §245(a)(2), the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You did an act with a firearm that by its nature would directly and probably result in the application of force to a person. The force used was likely to produce great bodily injury. You did that act willfully. When you acted, you were aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to realize that your act by its nature would directly and probably result in the application of force to someone. When you acted, you had the present ability to apply force likely to produce great bodily injury to a person. Finally, you did not act in self-defense or in defense of someone else.

Example: Defendant Dave robs Liquor Store. He uses a tire iron. He brandishes it in a way which causes Victim Vic, proprietor, to believe that he's about to be hit. Dave is close enough to Vic that the iron would also hurt Vic badly. After Vic gives Dave the Liquor Store's money, Dave leaves. Vic reports his crimes. Now Dave faces charges including an assault allegation. Is Dave guilty under CPC §245(a)(2)?  

Conclusion: Dave willfully committed an assault that was likely to cause great bodily injury. He knew Vic would fear application of force as a natural and probable consequence of his act. He was close enough to apply force to Vic and he was not acting in defense of himself or another. These are elements of the crime. But Dave didn't use a firearm. He should be charged under Subpart (a)(1). Dave isn't guilty.

Mayhem

Mayhem (CPC §203) involves unlawfully and maliciously depriving someone of a member of the body, or disabling, disfiguring, or rendering a body part useless, or cutting or disabling the tongue, or putting out an eye, or slitting the nose, ear, or lip.

If you're convicted of Mayhem, the penalty, without aggravation of the crime, may be:

  • A term of up to eight (8) years in a state prison;[39] OR,

 

  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,

 

  • Both imprisonment and a fine.[40]

Mayhem is also considered both a ‘serious' and a ‘violent' felony for purposes of California's “Three Strikes” system.[41] If you accrue three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five (25) years in state prison.[42]

You can always find more information in the California Violent Crime Defense Lawyers section of the Kann California Law Group's website. Feel free to contact the Kann California Law Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call will always go directly to a lawyer. That's always our guarantee.

California Criminal Jury Instructions – Mayhem

To convict you under CPC §203, the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You removed a part of someone's body or you disabled or made useless a part of someone's body and the disability was more than slight or temporary or you permanently disfigured someone or you cut or disabled someone's tongue or you slit someone's nose, ear, or lip or you put out someone's eye or you injured someone's eye in a way that so significantly reduced his or her ability to see that the eye is useless for the purpose of ordinary sight.

Example: Defendant Dimi admits that he cut off Victim Veronica's arms. He admits that he did this willfully. He admits that he acted maliciously. He even admits that he had no legal justification for doing this to Veronica. Yet Dimi still insists that he cannot be guilty of an allegation under CPC §203 because Veronica was dead when he removed her arms. Is Dimi correct or should he be convicted of the charge?

Conclusion: Dimi willfully and maliciously deprived Veronica of two body parts. This is illegal under the statute. But the purpose of the Mayhem law is to punish persons who leave living persons with major or permanent disabilities, including the loss of limbs. Veronica was not alive when Dimi removed her arms. Thus, while Dimi might be punished otherwise, he is correct. Dimi should not be convicted of Mayhem.

Murder

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being or fetus with malice aforethought. Penal Code Section 187(a) applies to murders that are premeditated or specified in the criminal statutes. The Section also applies to killings that occur during the commission of dangerous felonies via ‘the Felony-Murder Rule.'

If you're convicted of Murder, the penalty may be:

  • A term of life in a state prison without the possibility of parole;[43] OR,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both imprisonment and a fine.[44]

Murder is also counted as both a ‘serious' and a ‘violent' felony for purposes of California's “Three Strikes” system.[45] If you accrue three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five (25) years in state prison.[46]

You can always find more information in the Murder section of the Kann California Law Group's website. Feel free to contact the Kann California Law Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call will always go directly to a lawyer. That's always guaranteed.

California Criminal Jury Instructions – Murder

To convict you under CPC §187, the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You committed an act that caused the death of another person or a fetus or you had a legal duty to help, care for, rescue, warn, or maintain the property of a person and failed to perform that duty, with such failure causing the death of another person or a fetus. When you acted or failed to act, you had a state of mind called malice aforethought. Finally, you killed without lawful excuse or justification.

Example: Defendant Danni finds Victim Verne, her boyfriend, in bed with Danni's Best Friend. To make matters worse, they're in Danni's house and in Danni's bed. She loses control and blacks-out in a subsequent fit of anger. She awakens in a jail cell. Danni is told that she killed Verne. Danni is horrified and has no memory of any violence. Nonetheless, she's facing a charge under CPC §187. Is Danni guilty?

Conclusion: Danni may have committed an act which caused Verne's death. She would've had no legal excuse (i.e., she wasn't defending herself or someone else). These are elements of the crime. But Danni did not act with malice aforethought. She was confronted with an infuriating scene and blacked out. Thus, Danni can't say that she chose to hurt Verne - or if she even did it. Danni is not guilty under §187.

Voluntary Manslaughter

Voluntary Manslaughter (CPC §192(a)) is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. Under Subpart (a), it is described as killing which occurs in the heat of passion or a sudden quarrel. You can also violate the law by intentionally committing an act that causes the death of another person, the natural consequences of the act were dangerous to human life, which you know at the time you act, though you deliberately act nonetheless with conscious disregard for human life.

If you're convicted of Voluntary Manslaughter under Subpart (a), the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to eleven (11) years in a state prison;[47] OR,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both imprisonment and a fine.[48]

California Criminal Jury Instructions – Voluntary Manslaughter

To convict you under CPC §192(a), the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You committed an act that caused the death of another person, unlawfully intending to kill someone, or you intentionally committed an act that caused the death of another person, the natural consequences of the act were dangerous to human life, which you knew at the time you acted though you deliberately acted nonetheless with conscious disregard for human life. Finally, you killed without lawful excuse.

Example: Defendant Dani finds Victim Vern, her boyfriend, in bed with Dani's Best Friend. To make matters worse, they're in Dani's house and in Dani's bed. She attacks both, reserving her most serious harm for Vern, whom she decides to kill. Dani subsequently kills Vern. But now Dani insists that she can't be guilty of Manslaughter on these facts. Still, she's facing a charge under CPC §192(a). Is Dani guilty?

Conclusion: Dani willingly committed an act which caused Vern's death. She had no legal excuse (i.e., she wasn't defending herself or someone else) and Dani killed unlawfully. These are the elements of the crime as charged. But Dani decided to kill Vern. Even a moment's reflection is enough to create malice aforethought. Thus, Dani is actually guilty of the crime of Murder. Dani is not guilty under CPC §192(a).

Involuntary Manslaughter

Involuntary Manslaughter (CPC §192(b)) involves committing a crime (or a lawful act in an unlawful manner) with criminal negligence and causing the death of another person. You act with “criminal negligence” when you act in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury, and a reasonable person would know that acting in that way would create the risk.

If you're convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to four (4) years in a state prison;[49] OR,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both imprisonment and a fine.[50]

California Criminal Jury Instructions – Involuntary Manslaughter

To convict you under CPC §192(b), the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You committed a crime or a lawful act in an unlawful manner. You committed the crime or act with criminal negligence. Finally, your act caused the death of another person.

Example: Defendant Diego repairs firearms professionally at a shop. However, facing a backlog of work, he begins taking repairs to his home where he lives with five family members. He starts leaving firearms out on a table where others can get to them. Victim Vinicio, his four-year-old son, gets access to such a weapon. He shoots himself. He dies. Now Diego faces charges under §192(b). Should he be acquitted?

Conclusion: Diego conducted a lawful business in an unlawful manner (professionally repairing firearms but leaving the guns exposed to people who aren't permitted to handle them, including a child). This shows a reckless disregard for a high degree of risk that most reasonable people would recognize – i.e., criminal negligence resulting in Vinicio's death. These facts prove the crime. Diego should be convicted.

Torture

California law on Torture (CPC §206) applies whenever anyone inflicts great bodily injury “with the intent to cause cruel or extreme pain and suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or for any sadistic purpose[.]”[51]

If you're convicted of Torture, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to three (3) years in a state prison;[52] OR,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both imprisonment and a fine.[53]

Torture is also counted as a ‘violent' felony for purposes of California's “Three Strikes” system.[54] If you accrue three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five (25) years in state prison.[55]

California Criminal Jury Instructions – Torture

To convict you under CPC §206, the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You inflicted great bodily injury on someone else. When inflicting the injury, you intended to cause cruel or extreme pain and suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or any sadistic purpose.

Example: Defendant Dmitri is feuding with Victim Vero, his neighbor. Vero hates music. Dmitri has taken to playing loud punk rock music every time Vero, an elderly man, is home. He hopes to drive Vero out. But Vero calls police after Dmitri begins playing music one day. He says he's being “tortured” and has Dmitri charged with a violation of CPC §206. Dmitri insists that he can't be guilty. Is Dmitri innocent? 

Conclusion: It could be argued that Dmitri used loud music to cause Vero to suffer because Dmitri was trying to persuade Vero to leave. This is an element of the crime. But a violation of Section 206 requires inflicting great bodily injury, something more than incidental or insignificant discomfort. Vero merely hated the sound of music. It doesn't mean he suffered this type of injury. Dmitri is innocent as charged.

What Can I Do If I'm Charged With Simple Battery?

The State of California treats Simple Battery as a serious offense. If you're charged with Simple Battery, it's essential that you retain a skilled, dedicated criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. Your rights, freedom, and livelihood are at stake.

Remember, a professional criminal defense attorney may be able to:

  • Negotiate a lesser charge in a plea bargain;
  • Reduce your sentence;
  • Or even get charges dismissed completely.

The attorneys at the Kann California Law Group have an excellent understanding of the local courts and an extensive knowledge of California's criminal justice system. We can represent you in Ventura, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles, Encino, Pasadena and many other Southern California cities. 

If you or someone you know has been arrested for, or charged with, Simple Battery, our attorneys will analyze the facts of your case and plan a strategy that will help you obtain the best possible outcome.

Contact the Kann California Law Group today to schedule your free and confidential consultation.

References

[1] “Someone commits an act willfully when he or she does it willingly or on purpose. It is not required that he or she intend to break the law, hurt someone else, or gain any advantage.” See California Criminal Jury Instructions 960 (CALCRIM) (2020).

[2] “The slightest touching can be enough to commit a battery if it is done in a rude or angry way. Making contact with another person, including through his or her clothing, is enough. The touching does not have to cause pain or injury of any kind.” See above.

[3] Fact pattern based on “A Climate Activist Smeared Cake On The ‘Mona Lisa'” by Ade Onibada. Buzzfeednews.com, May 30, 2022.

[4] See California Penal Code [CPC] §243 (a).

[5] See above.

[6] See “Wobbler Law and Legal Definition” at USLegal.com.  

[7] See CPC §243 (c) (2).

[8] See Endnote 6.

[9] See CPC §243 (d).

[10] See CPC §672.

[11] See Endnote 4.

[12] Fact pattern inspired by “Amber Heard denies defecating in the bed she shared with Johnny Depp's on her 30th birthday: ‘That's disgusting,'” by Zac Ntim. Insider.com, May 16, 2022.

[13] See Endnote 6.

[14] See CPC §243.4 (a).

[15] See CPC §290 (d) (3) (J).

[16] Dominica still could be charged with another crime (e.g., Distributing Obscene Material (CPC §311.2)).

[17] See Endnote 6.

[18] See CPC §368 (b) (1).

[19] See CPC §368 (d).

[20] See CPC §19.

[21] See Endnote 6.

[22] See CPC §245 (a) (1).

[23] See CPC §§ [Sections] 1192.7 (c) (11), (13), (31), (32).

[24] See CPC §667 (e) (2) (A) (ii).   

[25] Fact pattern inspired by “Juan Marichal clubbed John Roseboro 50 years ago in ugly, iconic incident,” by Kevin Stone. ESPN.com, Aug. 18, 2015. 

[26] See California Criminal Jury Instructions 3470 (CALCRIM) (2020).

[27] See CPC §273.5 (a).

[28] See Endnote 26.

[29] See CPC §273d (a).

[30] See Endnote 6.

[31] See Endnote 29.

[32] See Endnote 6.

[33] See CPC §273a (a).

[34] See Endnote 10.

[35] See Endnote 6.

[36] See CPC §245 (a) (2).

[37] See Endnote 23.

[38] See Endnote 24.

[39] See CPC §204.

[40] See Endnote 10.

[41] See CPC §§1192.7 (c) (2), 667.5 (c) (2).

[42] See Endnote 24.   

[43] See CPC §190 (a). [Note: There is a current moratorium on application of the death penalty.]

[44] See Endnote 10.

[45] See CPC §§ 1192.7 (c) (1), 667.5 (c) (1).

[46] See Endnote 24.

[47] See CPC §193 (a).

[48] See Endnote 10.

[49] See CPC §193 (b).

[50] See Endnote 10.

[51] See CPC §206.

[52] See CPC §18 (a).

[53] See Endnote 10.

[54] See CPC §667.5 (c) (8).

[55] See Endnote 24.

Menu