Logo
Searching Tips

When searching Forecite California, there are shortcuts you can take to find the information you are looking for:

1. By Code Section:

Forecite uses standard abbreviations for different types of codes. Those abbreviations can be found below:

Codes:
CCR California Code of Regulations
Corp C Corporations Code
EC Evidence Code
FG Fish and Game Code
GC Government Code
HN Harbors & Navigation Code
HS Health & Safety Code
PC Penal Code
RT Revenue & Tax Code
VC Vehicle Code
WI Welfare & Institutions Code

Using these codes to search is very simple. For example, if you wanted to search for Penal Code section 20, you would type PC 20 into the search box.

2. By CALJIC Number:

Since Forecite is indexed to CALJIC, searching for CALJIC numbers is easy. For example, to search for CALJIC 3.16, you would type 3.16 into the search box.

3. By Case Name or Citation:

To find a case or citation, simply enter all or part of the case’s citation. Since many cases are known only by one name involved, it is often helpful to not search for the entire citation. For example, if you were searching for references to People v. Geiger (84) 35 C3d 510, 526 [199 CR 45], you could search for People v. Geiger or just Geiger. Searching for Geiger might be more helpful since it would find references to the case that do not include the full citation.

  • Contact Us
  • Log In
  • My Account

  • Home
  • Firm Overview
  • Attorney Profiles
  • Practice Areas
  • Verdicts & Settlements
  • News & media
  • Blog
  • Contact

Back to  Previous Page
Back to top

Return to CALJIC Part 14-17 – Contents

F 16.170 n1  Misdemeanor Child Abuse:  Not Unconstitutionally Vague (PC 273a).

Void for vagueness arguments have been rejected as to felony child endangerment (PC 273a(1).)  (See Walker v. Superior Court (88) 47 C3d 112, 114 [253 CR 1].)  People v. Deskin (92) 10 CA4th 1397, 1400 [13 CR2d 391] rejected a similar challenge to misdemeanor child endangerment.  (PC 273a(2).)


F 16.170 n2  Child Abuse:  New Four-Year Enhancement (PC 273a).

Effective 1/1/94, PC 273a has added a four-year enhancement for a person who is convicted of willfully causing the death of a child in circumstances likely to cause great bodily harm to the child.  CJ 16.170 should be modified to add the enhancement elements when charged.  Also note that an enhancement has been added for great bodily injury resulting in coma or paralysis.

See FORECITE F 1.20a regarding knowledge requirement of willfulness element.


F 16.170 n3  Child Abuse:  Definition Of “Care” And “Custody.”

[See FORECITE F 9.37 n4]


F 16.170a

Child Endangerment: Must Be Reasonably

Foreseeable And Probable

(PC 273a(2))

*To be added at end of CJ 16.170:

You may not find that the child was endangered unless the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a serious physical danger or health hazard which was reasonably foreseeable and which created a reasonable probability that the child’s person or health would be endangered.

 

If, after considering the circumstances you have a reasonable doubt whether the danger to the child was reasonably foreseeable and reasonably probable you must give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and find [him] [her] not guilty.

Points and Authorities

PC 273a(2) authorizes criminal liability when the child “may be endangered.”  Literal interpretation of this provision would not provide “a fair description of the prohibited conduct, since virtually any conduct directed toward a child has the possibility, however slim, of endangering the child’s life or health.  [Citations.]”  (People v. Hoehl (Colo. Supreme Ct. 1977) 568 P2d 484, 486; see also People v. Beaugez (65) 232 CA2d 650, 658 [43 CR 28].)

Therefore the due process proscription against overly broad and vague criminal legislation (U.S. Const. 5th & 14th Amendments; Calif. Const. Art. 1; e.g., People v. Superior Ct. (Caswell) (88) 46 C3d 381, 389-90 [250 CR 515]) requires that the term “may” be construed narrowly to mean that there is a “reasonable probability” that the child “will be endangered from the situation in which the child is placed.”  (Hoehl 568 P2d at 486.)  Moreover, it must be shown that the specific danger existed and that it was “reasonably foreseeable.”  (People v. Beaugez 232 CA2d at 658.)

Additionally, overbroad interpretation of the statute would implicate the defendant’s federal constitutional right to freedom of choice regarding family life.  (See also Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. LaFleur (74) 414 US 632, 639 [39 LEd2d 52].)

The language “serious danger or health hazard” is taken from People v. Beaugez 232 CA2d at 658.

Failure to adequately instruct the jury upon matters relating to proof of any element of the charge and/or the prosecution’s burden of proof thereon violates the defendant’s state (Art. I, § 15 and § 16) and federal (6th and 14th Amendments) constitutional rights to trial by jury and due process.  [See generally, FORECITE PG VII(C).]

  • Register as New User
  • Contact Us
© James Publishing, Inc. (866) 72-JAMES