California Penal Code § [Section] 273a(a) – Child Endangerment
California Penal Code [CPC] §273a(a) – Child Endangerment – Penal Code Section 273a(a) makes it illegal to permit any child to suffer unjustifiable pain or mental suffering under circumstances likely to produce great bodily harm or death. The statute applies whether or not you have custody of the child. The law additionally forbids permitting a child to be placed in a situation where the child's health is endangered.
Since you can be convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the facts of your case, Section 273a(a) is a “wobbler”[1] crime: punishment “wobbles” between two degrees of severity. Felony punishment can be up to six years in state prison and a fine of up to $10,000. Misdemeanor conviction can produce a year in a county jail and a fine of up to $1,000. Furthermore, Child Endangerment is punishable under California's “Three Strikes” system. If you receive three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five years in a state prison.
What Does California Penal Code §273a(a) [Child Endangerment] Prohibit?
In sum, to be guilty of Child Endangerment under CPC §273a(a), the prosecution must prove:
- That you inflicted pain on a child; OR,
- That you permitted a child to suffer; OR,
- That you had care or custody of a child; AND,
- That you permitted the child to suffer; OR,
- That you permitted the child to be injured; OR,
- That you permitted the child to be somewhere dangerous; AND,
- That you hurt the child, permitted the child to suffer, or permitted the child's injury when it was likely to produce great bodily harm or death; OR;
- That you were criminally negligent; AND,
- That you weren't reasonably disciplining the child.
Defining “Child Endangerment” Under California Penal Code §273a(a)
To convict you under CPC §273a(a), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
- WILLFULLY: You acted willfully;[2] OR,
- CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT: You were criminally negligent;[3] AND,
- INFLICTED PAIN OR MENTAL SUFFERING: You inflicted unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering[4] on a child[5] who was not in your custody; OR,
- CAUSED OR PERMITTED: You caused or permitted a child who was not in your custody to suffer unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering; OR,
- HAD CARE OR CUSTODY OF A CHILD: You had care or custody of a child; AND,
- CAUSED OR PERMITTED…/HEALTH OF THE CHILD: You caused or permitted the person or health of the child in your custody to be injured; OR,
- ENDANGERED: You caused or permitted a child who was in your custody to be placed in a situation where the child's person or health was endangered; AND,
- INFLICTED PAIN OR SUFFERING…: You inflicted pain or suffering on a child or caused or permitted a child to suffer, to be injured, or to be endangered; AND,
- GREAT BODILY HARM[6] OR DEATH: The circumstances or conditions were likely to produce great bodily harm or death;[7] AND,
- NO LEGAL EXCUSE: You did not act while reasonably disciplining the child.
Note: A child does not need to suffer actual great bodily harm for a guilty verdict under CPC §273a(a).
Example: Defendant Damian admits that he tortured Victim Vonn, a six-year-old former neighbor. He admits that he caused her great bodily harm. He admits that he had no legal excuse for doing this to her. He describes this act as willful. Nonetheless, Damian says he can't be guilty under CPC §273a(a) because Vonn is not his custodial[8] responsibility in any way. Is Damian correct or should Damian be convicted?
Conclusion: Damian admitted to willfully causing pain and suffering by torturing a child. He admitted that he had no legal right to injure Vonn. He admitted causing her great bodily harm. These are the elements of the crime. Damian apparently believes that endangerment can only occur between children and adults who're custodially responsible for them, but the law requires less. He should be convicted.
Penalties For Child Endangerment Under CPC §273a(a)
If you're convicted of a felony count of Child Endangerment under CPC §273a(a), the penalty may be:
- A term of up to six (6) years in a state prison;[9] OR,
- A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
- Both imprisonment and a fine.[10]
If you're convicted of a misdemeanor count, however, the penalty may be:
- A term of up to one (1) year in a county jail;[11] OR,
- A fine of up to $1,000 (one-thousand dollars); OR,
- Both jail time and a fine.[12]
Since you can be convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the facts of your case, Section 273a(a) is a “wobbler”[13] crime: punishment “wobbles” between two degrees of severity. As stated previously, felony conviction permits up to six (6) years in a state prison[14] and/or a fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[15] Misdemeanor conviction allows up to one (1) year in a county jail[16] and/or a fine of up to $1,000 (one-thousand dollars).[17]
Furthermore, Child Endangerment is punishable under California's “Three Strikes” system.[18] If you receive three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five years in a state prison.[19]
Defenses Against California Penal Code §273a(a) – Child Endangerment
Five common defenses against a charge of Child Endangerment under CPC §273a(a) are:
You Were Not Responsible For The Child
Example: Defendant Davey is a counselor at Summer Camp when Older Counselor is arrested for abusing minor campers, including Victim Veronica. Davey knows Older Counselor. Veronica, however, is not one of the campers for whom Davey is responsible. Nonetheless, since Davey is associated with Older Counselor, Davey has been charged under CPC §273a(a). Should he be convicted, on these facts?
Conclusion: Older Counselor abused Veronica. Davey did not. Nor did Davey put Veronica in a position to be abused by Older Counselor. This is clear from the facts. Under these circumstances, Davey can only be guilty if protecting Veronica was his legal duty, either by agreement with Davey or by direction of the law. Neither was the case. Thus, Davey should not be convicted. He was not responsible for the child.
You Were Falsely Accused
Example: Defendant Deirdre is mired in a vicious divorce with Ex-Husband. Desperate to pry their young daughter from Deirdre's custody, Ex-Husband convinces Victim Vera, their four-year-old daughter, to falsely report that Deirdre starves her “like a bad witch in a fairy story.” Then Ex-Husband uses the report to have Deirdre charged under §273a(a). Should she be convicted, under these circumstances?
Conclusion: Ex-Husband simply wanted to prevent Deidre from getting custody of Vera. Thus, he created a story “from whole cloth” and had Vera repeat it so that he could have Deidre arrested. Given these facts, Deidre should be acquitted. She was falsely accused.
You Didn't Willfully Endanger The Child
Example: Defendant Derek is walking along a busy street with Victim Victor, his minor son, when Skater comes barreling along the pavement. Skater nearly strikes Victor. Derek rescues Victor from Skater's path by pulling him into the street. This prevents a serious injury - and exposes Victor to traffic. Police Officer arrests Derek for endangering Victor by pulling him into the street. Is he guilty under §273a(a)?
Conclusion: Defendant Derek may have engaged in an act that endangered Victor when he pulled the boy into the street, thereby exposing Victor to traffic, but this was not done with the intent of placing Victor in danger. Victor was pulled away in order to protect Victor from an imminent threat of serious injury. Therefore, Derek is not guilty of Child Endangerment. Derek did not willfully endanger the child.
You Had A Legal Excuse
Example: Defendant Donnie goes to a child's birthday party with Victim Vi, his minor daughter. Vi behaves very badly at the party. She hits other children. She refuses to listen to Donnie. Nor does she respond to being disciplined with patience and reason. Finally, Donnie spanks Vi once. She cries and promises to behave. Other parents are horrified. They have Donnie charged under §273a(a). Is he guilty?
Conclusion: Donnie willfully inflicted pain on Vi. Even assuming it was sufficient to cause Vi great bodily harm, however, he still didn't do so to hurt Vi. He was trying to control her unruly behavior. The facts do not indicate that he spanked Vi more than once. This caused her to promise that she would change her actions. He did only what was required to discipline his child. Donnie is innocent. He had a legal excuse.
Another Person Endangered The Child
Example: Defendant Dominica comes across Victim Verne, a child, as Verne is drowning in a public pool. She goes to help Verne. Unbeknownst to her, however, Parent, who actually pushed Verne into the pool, is watching from a nearby point. Seeing Dominica get involved, Parent calls police and tells them that Dominica is abusing Verne. Now Dominica is facing charges under CPC §273a(a). Is Dominica guilty?
Conclusion: Dominica, as the facts make clear, came to aid Verne when she encountered Verne drowning in a public pool. Parent was the one responsible for placing Verne in this predicament. On these facts, Dominica should be thanked for trying to protect Verne from Parent. Dominica is not guilty of abusing Verne. Another person endangered the child.
Related Offenses
Note: The crimes below are described generally as “related” because they're frequently charged with CPC §273a(a) and/or have common elements the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
The California Penal Code includes several offenses related to Child Endangerment: Child Abuse (CPC §273d(a)), Child Neglect (CPC §270), Lewd Acts On A Child (CPC §288(a)), Driving Under The Influence (California Vehicle Code [CVC] §23152(a)), Murder (CPC §187(a)), Voluntary Manslaughter (CPC §192(a)), Involuntary Manslaughter (CPC §192(b)), Furnishing Fireworks To A Minor (California Health & Safety Code [HSC] §12702(a)), Relinquishing A Vehicle To A Minor (CPC §193.8(a)), Arranging Meeting With Minor For Lewd Purpose (CPC §288.4(a)(1), Contacting Minor With Intent To Commit Certain Felonies (CPC §288.3(a)), Oral Copulation On A Minor (CPC §§287(a) and (b)(1)) and Statutory Rape (CPC §§261.5(a),(b)).
Child Abuse
Child Abuse (CPC §273d(a)) occurs when anyone willfully inflicts cruel or inhuman corporal punishment or injury resulting in a traumatic condition on a child. However, if the punishment is deemed to have not been "cruel or inhuman," or did not cause the child to be in a traumatic condition, you can be convicted of a misdemeanor. Thus, Section 273d(a) is a “wobbler.”[20]
If you're convicted of the felony form of Child Abuse, 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 jail time and a fine.[21]
More information can be found in the California Child Abuse Attorney 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 – Child Abuse
To convict you under CPC §273d(a), the prosecutor 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. When you acted, lastly, you were not reasonably disciplining the child.
Example: Defendant Dom admits that he spanked Victim Vincente, his minor son, with a thin magazine. He admits he wasn't acting reasonably at the time. However, Dom does not believe that he can be convicted of violating CPC §273d(a) merely by striking his son several times with a cylinder of paper, irrespective of the spanking causing several red marks. Is Dom correct?
Conclusion: Since Dom admits that he struck Vincente in a way which caused injury, and which was not necessary to reasonably discipline Vincente, Dom can be charged with either a misdemeanor or a felony count of Child Abuse. Dom doesn't understand that the offense may be charged differently, depending on the facts of the individual case. Under these circumstances, Dom is incorrect.
Child Neglect
If a parent of a minor child willfully omits to furnish clothing, food, shelter or medical attendance, or other remedial care for his or her child, that parent is guilty of misdemeanor Child Neglect (CPC §270). The statute applies whether the parents of the child are, or were ever, married or divorced. For purposes of the law, unborn children are deemed existing persons. The husband of a woman who bears a child as a result of artificial insemination is also considered the father of that child, for the purposes of this section, if he consented in writing to the artificial insemination.
Since you can be convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on whether a court has made a final determination that you're the parent of a minor child (and whether you have notice of the adjudication), §270 is a “wobbler”[22] crime. If you're convicted of the felony form, the penalty may be:
- A term of up to one (1) year and one (1) day in a state prison; OR,
- A fine of up to $2,000 (two-thousand dollars); OR,
- Both prison time and a fine.[23]
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 will go directly to a lawyer. That is our guarantee.
California Jury Instructions – Child Neglect
To convict you under CPC §270, the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
You were the parent of a child (or children). The child (or children) was (or were) of minor age. You failed to provide necessities. Finally, the failure to provide was willful and without lawful excuse.
Example: Defendant Danica refuses to provide Victim Valentina, her minor daughter, with a new video game system for Valentina's birthday. Valentina hears from a friend about “necessities” and concludes that Danica has neglected her. Valentina has Danica arrested for violating CPC §270. Is Danica guilty?
Conclusion: Valentina is entitled to “necessities.” These include food, water, shelter, medical attention and remedial care like education. But the law does not obligate parents to purchase video game entertainment systems for their children. While Valentina may view the video game gift as a necessity, Danica hasn't done anything illegal under CPC §270.
Lewd Acts On A Child
Penal Code Section 288(a) prohibits lewd or lascivious acts with minors under fourteen. Lewd acts have to occur to arouse or appeal to the desires of the defendant, or the child, if they're to be illegal under this Section but arousing, appealing to, or gratifying your lust, your passions, or the sexual desires of yourself or the child isn't required. The crime is related to Child Endangerment because lewd acts can endanger a child, permitting the prosecution to charge you with both crimes in the same trial.
If you're convicted of Lewd Acts On A Child, the penalty may be:
- A term of up to eight (8) years in a state prison;[24] OR,
- A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
- Both imprisonment and a fine;[25] AND,
- An additional fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars), which must be paid into a victim's relief fund;[26] AND,
- The obligation to register as a Sex Offender.[27]
Lewd Acts On A Child is also punished under California's “Three Strikes” system.[28] If you get three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five years in prison.[29]
More information can be found in the Lewd Acts On A Child 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 will go directly to a lawyer. That is always guaranteed.
California Jury Instructions – Lewd Acts On A Child
To convict you under CPC §288(a), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
You willfully touched any part of a child's body either on the bare skin or through the clothing or you willfully caused a child to touch his or her own body, your body, or the body of someone else, either on the bare skin or through the clothing. You committed the act with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires of yourself or the child. Finally, the child was under the age of fourteen years at the time.
Example: Defendant Dominic admits that he induced Victim Vilem, his four-year-old nephew, to touch Dominic's legs while Dominic pleasured himself. Nonetheless, Dominic insists that he can't be guilty of a charge under §288(a) because Vilem is too young to be sexually aroused. Is Dominic correct?
Conclusion: Dominic willfully induced Vilem to touch Dominic's legs, an act resulting in Dominic's sexual gratification. Vilem was under the age of fourteen at the time. These are the elements of the offense. The law does not require that Vilem derive any pleasure from the lewd act. Violation may occur based on acts like an adult making a child touch the adult's body. Therefore, Dominic is incorrect.
Driving Under The Influence
Driving Under The Influence (California Vehicle Code [CVC] §23152(a)) involves a person who's under the influence of an alcoholic beverage driving a vehicle. The statute prohibits driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding 0.08, by weight. The crime is related to Child Endangerment because driving a vehicle with a minor inside it while under the influence endangers the minor, permitting the prosecution to charge you with both crimes in the same trial.
If you're convicted of Driving Under The Influence, the first-time penalty may be:
- A term of up to six (6) months in a county jail; OR,
- A fine of up to $1,000 (one-thousand dollars); OR,
- Both jail time and a fine.[30]
More information can be found in the California DUI Law 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 will go directly to a lawyer. That is guaranteed.
California Jury Instructions – Driving Under The Influence
To convict you under CVC §23152(a), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
You drove a vehicle while you were under the influence of an alcoholic beverage.
Example: Defendant Dominic has been arrested and charged with driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, a violation of CVC §23152(a). But Dominic's blood, when tested by police at a local hospital on the night of his arrest, shows illegal opioids and methamphetamine – but no alcohol. He says that he can't be convicted, under these circumstances. Is Dominic correct or should he be convicted?
Conclusion: Dominic willingly drove a vehicle while under the influence of a substance prohibited by Section 23152 of the Vehicle Code. But the subpart which prohibits driving while under the influence of drugs is CVC §23152(f). (Section 23152(c) also makes it illegal to drive while addicted to any drug.) Therefore, although he could be convicted under Section 23152 if properly charged, Dominic is correct.
Murder
Murder (CPC §187(a)) is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. This requires nothing more than the slightest moment of reflection in deciding to kill another person. The crime is related to Child Endangerment because acts violating CPC §273a can produce a minor's death, potentially permitting the prosecution to charge you with both crimes in the same trial.
If you're convicted of Murder, the penalty may be:
- A term of life without the possibility of parole in a state prison;[31] OR,
- A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
- Both a prison term and a fine.[32]
Murder is also punished under California's “Three Strikes” system.[33] If you get three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five years in prison.[34]
More information can be found in the Murder 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 will go directly to a lawyer. That is a guarantee.
California Jury Instructions – Murder
To convict you under CPC §187(a), the prosecutor 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 decedent and you failed to perform that duty, with the failure causing the death of that 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 Damian and Brother corner Victim Vicki to rob her. Damian produces a pistol. But Vicki shows them a police officer's badge. Brother decides to abandon the robbery. He tells Damian to give up the weapon, saying, “Let her have it.” Damian thinks this means he should kill her.[35] He decides to. Now he's facing charges under §187. Damian says he simply misunderstood Brother. Is he innocent?
Conclusion: Damian willfully shot and killed Vicki. That Brother didn't want him to do it helps Brother's defense only; Damian, though he misunderstood Brother, still took enough time to decide to kill Vicki. Thus, Damian had the state of mind known as malice aforethought. He also had no legal excuse or justification for the killing. These are the elements of the offense. Damian is guilty under Section 187(a).
Voluntary Manslaughter
Voluntary Manslaughter (CPC §192(a)) is the unlawful killing of a human being upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion. The crime is related to Child Endangerment because acts violating CPC §273a can produce a minor's death, potentially permitting the prosecution to charge you with both crimes in the same trial.
If you're convicted of Voluntary Manslaughter, the penalty may be:
- A term of up to eleven (11) years in a state prison;[36] OR,
- A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
- Both imprisonment and a fine.[37]
Voluntary Manslaughter is also punished under California's “Three Strikes” system.[38] If you get three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five years in prison.[39]
More information can be found in the California Violent Crimes Defense Lawyers 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 will go directly to a lawyer. That is always a guarantee.
California Jury Instructions – Voluntary Manslaughter
To convict you under CPC §192(a), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
You committed an act that caused the death of another person while unlawfully intending to kill someone. You also killed without lawful excuse or justification. OR You intentionally committed an act that caused the death of another person. The natural consequences of the act were dangerous to human life. At the time you acted, you knew the act was dangerous to human life. Nonetheless, you deliberately acted with conscious disregard for human life, killing without lawful excuse or justification.
Example: Defendant Davis trades Bitcoin.[40] He has more than $1 million worth of Bitcoin on his laptop computer, representing his life savings. He comes home to find Victim Vic, his minor son, jumping up and down on the broken computer. The money is lost. Davis loses control. He hits Vic over the head with the shattered machine. Vic dies. Now Davis faces a charge under §192(a). Should Davis be convicted?
Conclusion: Davis committed an act which resulted in his son's death (hitting his son in the head with a computer). But Davis acted on sheer fury; he didn't decide to kill Vic, which would've made the crime premeditated. Davis, therefore, killed Vic without malice aforethought. Furthermore, Davis had no excuse or justification for the killing. These are the elements of the crime. Davis should be convicted.
Involuntary Manslaughter
Involuntary Manslaughter (CPC §192(b)) involves a person being killed in the commission of an unlawful act that doesn't amount to a felony. It also applies to killing while committing a lawful act which might produce death because it is pursued in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection. It does not apply to deaths that occur while driving a vehicle. The crime is related to Child Endangerment because acts violating CPC §273a can produce a minor's death, potentially permitting the prosecution to charge you with both crimes in the same trial.
If you're convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter, the penalty may be:
- A term of up to four (4) years in a state prison;[41] OR,
- A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
- Both imprisonment and a fine.[42]
California Jury Instructions – Involuntary Manslaughter
To convict you under CPC §192(b), the prosecutor 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 crime or act caused the death of another person.
Example: Defendant Dipali often cleans her firearms at her dining table. She has been known to clean them with her family sitting directly opposite her. One night, Dipali is cleaning a pistol at the table. The weapon is pointed at Victim Vinton, her son, in the chair facing hers. The gun unexpectedly fires and kills Vinton. Now Dipali is facing a charge under CPC §192(b). Is Dipali guilty, under these circumstances?
Conclusion: Dipali did something lawful in an unlawful manner (cleaning her weapon while pointing it at another person). She behaved with criminal negligence by being oblivious to a clear risk to Vinton, thereby breaching a duty to avoid hurting her son. The act resulted in Vinton's death. These are the elements of the crime. Dipali, therefore, is guilty.
Furnishing Fireworks To A Minor
Furnishing Fireworks To A Minor (California Health & Safety Code [HSC] §12702(a)) occurs when anyone sells, gives, or delivers fireworks to any person under eighteen years of age. The crime is related to Child Endangerment because giving fireworks to a minor can endanger the minor, potentially permitting the prosecution to charge you with both crimes in the same trial.
Since you can be convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the gross weight of the fireworks you possess when violating the law, Section 12702 is a “wobbler”[43] crime. If you're convicted of the felony form, the penalty may be:
- A term of up to three (3) years in a state prison;[44] OR,
- A fine of up to $50,000 (fifty-thousand dollars); OR,
- Both imprisonment and a fine.[45]
California Jury Instructions – Furnishing Fireworks To A Minor
To convict you under HSC §12702(a), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
You gave, sold, or delivered fireworks to any person under eighteen years of age.
Example: Defendant Derrick purchases a number of fireworks for the Fourth of July holiday. He shows Victim Vern, his nine-year-old son, how to set them off. At one point, Derrick allows Vern to hold a small firework for enough time to light its fuse. Police Officer sees Vern light the fuse and arrests Derrick. Now Derrick faces a charge under HSC §12702(a). Is Derrick guilty, on these facts?
Conclusion: Derrick gave a firework to a person under the age of eighteen. This violates the law. That Vern only held the firework for long enough to light its fuse is irrelevant, as is the size of the firework involved. The law prohibits furnishing fireworks to minors. Nothing more is required. Derrick is guilty.
Relinquishing A Vehicle To A Minor
Relinquishing A Vehicle To A Minor (CPC §193.8(a)) occurs whenever an adult owner or possessor of a motor vehicle relinquishes the vehicle to a minor for the purpose of driving when the adult knows or reasonably should know that the minor is intoxicated at the time, a petition was sustained or the minor was convicted of a violation of one of the specified Penal Code sections, and the minor does not otherwise have a lawful right to possession of the vehicle. The crime is related to Child Endangerment because relinquishing a vehicle to an intoxicated minor endangers the minor, potentially permitting the prosecution to charge you with both crimes in the same trial.
If you're convicted of Relinquishing A Vehicle To A Minor, the penalty may be:
- A term of up to six (6) months in a county jail; OR,
- A fine of up to $1,000 (one-thousand dollars); OR,
- Both jail time and a fine.[46]
California Jury Instructions – Relinquishing A Vehicle To A Minor
To convict you under CPC §193.8(a), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
You, an adult owner or possessor of a motor vehicle, relinquished your vehicle to a minor for the purpose of driving. You knew or reasonably should've known that the minor was intoxicated at the time. A petition was sustained prior or the minor was convicted of a violation of one of the specified Penal Code sections. Finally, the minor did not otherwise have a lawful right to possession of the vehicle.
Example: Defendant Dom knows that Victim Verona, his teenaged daughter, has been drinking with her friends in Dom's backyard. She wants to go to the store, which is just around the corner. Dom allows her to drive his car. She doesn't otherwise have the right to his vehicle. Verona is promptly arrested and charged with a DUI. Now Dom is facing a charge under CPC §193.8(a). Is Dom guilty, on these facts?
Conclusion: Dom willfully relinquished his vehicle to a teenaged minor who was intoxicated at the time. Dom knew this to be the case. Verona also didn't otherwise have a lawful right to possession of Dom's vehicle. These are elements of the offense. But the facts don't indicate that Verona had been subject to a prior petition or a conviction of an offense specified in the Code Section. Dom, therefore, is not guilty.
Arranging Meeting With Minor For Lewd Purpose
Arranging Meeting With Minor For Lewd Purpose (CPC §288.4(a)(1)) occurs when anyone arranges to meet with a minor in order to expose his or her genitals, pubic area or anus, or to engage in lewd and lascivious conduct. Unlike similar offenses, CPC §288.4(a)(1) makes it a crime to arrange a meeting with someone only assume to be a minor. The crime is related to Child Endangerment because meeting with a minor and committing lewd acts can endanger the minor, permitting the prosecution to charge you with both crimes in the same trial.
If you're convicted of Arranging Meeting With Minor For Lewd Purpose, the penalty may be:
- A term of up to one (1) year in a county jail; OR,
- A fine of up to $5,000 (five-thousand dollars); OR,
- Both imprisonment and a fine;[47] AND,
- The obligation to register as a Sex Offender.[48]
More information can be found in the Arranging Meeting With Minor For Lewd Purpose 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 will go directly to a lawyer. That is always a guarantee.
California Jury Instructions – Arranging Meeting With Minor For Lewd Purpose
To convict you under CPC §288.4(a), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
You arranged a meeting with a minor or a person you believed to be a minor. When you did so, you were motivated by an unnatural or abnormal sexual interest in children. Finally, at that meeting, you intended to expose your genitals or pubic or rectal area, or to have the minor expose his or her genitals or pubic or rectal area, or to engage in lewd or lascivious behavior.
Example: Defendant Douglass, a graduate student, writes about teenage perceptions of sexuality. He takes on a fictional online identity and develops a purely platonic friendship with fifteen-year-old Victim Verne. He interviews Verne. Then Douglass decides to meet with Verne, reveal his true identity, and continue the interview. But he's met by police who charge him under CPC §288.4(a). Is Douglass guilty?
Conclusion: Douglass arranged a meeting with a person he believed to be a minor and wished to discuss sex. This is an element of the crime. But Douglass was motivated by a desire to learn about Verne's perspectives to write about Verne in graduate work. His relationship with Verne was “purely platonic.” Therefore, since multiple elements of the offense are missing on these facts, Douglass is not guilty.
Contacting Minor With Intent To Commit Certain Felonies
Contacting Minor With Intent To Commit Certain Felonies (CPC §288.3(a)) involves contacting or communicating with a minor, or attempting to contact or communicate with a minor, knowing or that the person is a minor and intending to commit an offense specified in the statute. Section §288.3(a) makes it a crime to contact someone you should reasonably believe to be a minor, unlike similar offenses, and even criminalizes mere attempts at communicating with a minor to commit certain felonies. The crime is related to Child Endangerment because conduct which violates one of the listed offenses can generate charges under CPC §273a(a) in the same trial.
If you're convicted of Contacting Minor With Intent To Commit Certain Felonies, the penalty may be:
- A term of up to three (3) years in a state prison;[49] OR,
- A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
- Both imprisonment and a fine.[50]
More information can be found in the Contacting Minor With Intent To Commit Certain Felonies 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 will go directly to a lawyer. It's always guaranteed.
California Jury Instructions – Contacting Minor With Intent To Commit Certain Felonies
To convict you under CPC §288.3(a), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
You contacted or communicated with, or attempted to contact or communicate with, a minor. When you did so, you intended to commit an offense enumerated in the statute. Finally, you knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a minor or you believed the person was a minor.
Example: Defendant Deirdre, a forty-year-old high school teacher, admits that she contacted Victim Vince, her sixteen-year-old student, because she wanted to have sex with Vince. She admits this is a violation of §288.4(a) of the Penal Code. [See above.] She even admits that sexual contact would've been felonious. But she denies that she can be convicted of a violation of §288.3(a). Is Deirdre correct?
Conclusion: Deidre, an adult, contacted a minor for sexual purposes. These are elements of the crime. But Deidre wanted to commit an offense which, without additional facts, would constitute Statutory Rape. This is not one of the crimes listed in the statute. Therefore, while Deidre may be convicted under Section 288.4(a), she is correct that she cannot be convicted of violating Section 288.3(a).
Oral Copulation On A Minor
Oral Copulation On A Minor (CPC §§287(a) and (b)(1)) occurs whenever a person copulates the mouth of another person with a sex organ, or with the anus, if at least one of the persons involved is a minor.
Since §§287(a) and (b)(1) allow prosecutors to charge you with a felony or a misdemeanor, depending on the facts of your case, Oral Copulation On A Minor is a “wobbler”[51] offense. The crime is related to Child Endangerment because both Child Endangerment and Oral Copulation On A Minor involve acts which can endanger a child, permitting the prosecution to charge you with both crimes in the same trial.
If you're convicted of Oral Copulation On a Minor younger than sixteen, 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 a fine and imprisonment;[53] AND,
- The duty to register as a Sex Offender.[54]
Oral Copulation On a Minor is also punished under California's “Three Strikes” system.[55] If you get three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five years in prison.[56]
More information can be found in the California Sex Offense Lawyers section of the Kann California Defense Group's website. If you have questions, contact any of the Kann Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call always goes directly to a lawyer. We guarantee it.
California Criminal Jury Instructions – Oral Copulation On A Minor
To convict you under CPC §§287(a) and (b)(1), the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
You participated in oral copulation with the sexual organ or anus of a person younger than eighteen.
Example: Defendant Dominica admits that she performed oral sex on Victim Vincenzo. Both are high school students. Dominica was eighteen at the time. Vincenzo turned eighteen on the morning after their romantic encounter. Should Dominica be convicted under §§287(a) and (b)(1), on these facts?
Conclusion: Dominica participated in oral copulation on the sexual organ of a person who was younger than eighteen. The relevant fact here is that Vincenzo was seventeen when they had this encounter. The law considers someone eighteen on the first minute of their eighteenth birthday. But Vincenzo wasn't a legal adult (eighteen) until the morning after the oral copulation. Thus, Dominica should be convicted.
Statutory Rape
Statutory Rape (CPC §261.5(a),(b)) occurs whenever anyone has sexual intercourse with a person under eighteen. The victim cannot be the guilty person's spouse. The crime is related to Child Endangerment because sex with minors can permit the prosecution to charge you with both crimes in the same trial.
Statutory Rape is a “wobbler”[57] crime; the prosecution can charge you with a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the unique facts of your case. If you are over twenty-one and the other person is under sixteen, the penalty may be:
- A term of up to four (4) years in state prison;[58] OR,
- A fine of up to $25,000 (twenty-five thousand dollars) (including a civil penalty); OR,
- Both imprisonment and a fine.[59]
California Criminal Jury Instructions – Statutory Rape
To convict you under CPC §§261.5(a),(b) the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
You had sexual intercourse with another person. You and the other person were not married to each other at the time of the intercourse. Finally, at the time of the intercourse, the other person was under the age of eighteen but not more than three years younger or older than yourself.
Example: Defendant Denton and Victim Vara have sex when Denton is sixteen and Vara is fifteen. Denton now faces charges of violating CPC §§261.5(a) and (b). He admits to the sex act but does not believe that he can be convicted because he is not an adult. Is Denton correct about Statutory Rape law?
Conclusion: Denton had sexual intercourse with a person to whom he wasn't married at the time. Vara was younger than eighteen. Finally, Vara was only a year Denton's junior in age. These are the elements of the crime. Denton wrongly believes that Section 261.5 penalizes only legal adults who have sex with minors. In fact, the Code Section applies to all persons who have sex with minors. Denton is incorrect.
What Can I Do If I'm Charged With Child Endangerment?
The State of California treats Child Endangerment as an exceptionally serious offense. If you're charged with Child Endangerment, 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, Child Endangerment, 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] See “Wobbler Law and Legal Definition” at USLegal.com.
[2] “Someone commits an act willfully when he or she does it willingly or on purpose.” See California Criminal Jury Instructions 821 (CALCRIM) (2022).
[3] “Criminal negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention, or mistake in judgment. A person acts with criminal negligence when: [¶] 1. He or she acts in a reckless way that is a gross departure from the way an ordinarily careful person would act in the same situation; [¶] 2. The person's acts amount to disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences of his or her acts; [¶] AND [¶] 3. A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would naturally and probably result in harm to others.” See California Criminal Jury Instructions 821 (CALCRIM) (2022).
[4] “Unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering is pain or suffering that is not reasonably necessary or is excessive under the circumstances.” See California Criminal Jury Instructions 821 (CALCRIM) (2022).
[5] “A child is any person under the age of 18 years.” See California Criminal Jury Instructions 821 (CALCRIM) (2022).
[6] “Great bodily harm means significant or substantial physical injury. It is an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm.” See California Criminal Jury Instructions 821 (CALCRIM) (2022).
[7] “The phrase ‘likely to produce great bodily harm or death' means the probability of great bodily harm or death is high.” See California Criminal Jury Instructions 821 (CALCRIM) (2022).
[8] See “Custody Law and Legal Definition” at USLegal.com.
[9] See California Penal Code [CPC] §273a (a).
[10] See CPC §672.
[11] See Endnote 9.
[12] See CPC §19.
[13] See Endnote 1.
[14] See Endnote 9.
[15] See Endnote 10.
[16] See Endnote 9.
[17] See Endnote 12.
[18] See CPC §1192.7 (c) (8).
[19] See CPC §667 (e) (2) (A) (ii).
[20] See Endnote 1.
[21] See CPC §273d (a).
[22] See Endnote 1.
[23] See CPC §270.
[24] See CPC §288 (a).
[25] See Endnote 10.
[26] See CPC §288 (e) (1).
[27] See CPC §290 (c) (1).
[28] See CPC §§ [Sections] 1192.7 (c) (6); 667.5 (c) (6).
[29] See Endnote 19.
[30] See Endnote 12.
[31] See CPC §190 (a). (Note: A moratorium has been declared on seeking the death penalty in murder cases.)
[32] See Endnote 10.
[33] See CPC §§ [Sections] 1192.7 (c) (1); 667.5 (c) (1).
[34] See Endnote 19.
[35] Fact pattern inspired by the true story behind Peter Medak's 1991 film, Let Him Have It (Canal+ Films). See Wikipedia.org.
[36] See CPC §193 (a).
[37] Endnote 10.
[38] See Endnote 33.
[39] See Endnote 19.
[40] See “Bitcoin” at Wikipedia.org.
[41] See CPC §193 (b).
[42] See Endnote 10.
[43] See Endnote 1.
[44] See CPC §1170 (h) (1).
[45] See California Health & Safety Code [HSC] §12700 (b) (4).
[46] See CPC §193.8 (c).
[47] See CPC §288.4 (a) (1).
[48] See Endnote 27.
[49] See CPC §18 (a).
[50] See Endnote 10.
[51] See Endnote 1.
[52] See Endnote 51.
[53] See Endnote 10.
[54] See Endnote 48.
[55] See CPC §667.5 (c) (5).
[56] See Endnote 19.
[57] Endnote 1.
[58] See CPC §261.5 (d).
[59] See CPC §261.5 (e) (1) (D).
