Return to CALJIC Part 9-12 – Contents
F 9.22 n1 Battery On A Peace Officer: Injury Must Require Professional Medical Treatment.
Under PC 243(c), the test of whether the injury sustained by the officer “requires professional medical treatment,” is objective and factual. Hence, actual medical treatment is not an element of the injury. (People vs. Longoria (95) 34 CA4th 12, 17 [40 CR2d 213]; People v. Lara (94) 30 CA4th 658 [35 CR2d 886; In re Julian M. DEPUBLISHED (94) 23 CA4th 857, 864 [29 CR2d 1]; see also In re Michael P. (96) 50 CA4th 1525 [58 CR2d 362] [failure of victim to specifically describe his injuries rendered record insufficient to establish that injuries required professional medical treatment].)
F 9.22 n2 Battery On A Peace Officer: Definition Of Peace Officer (PC 830.1).
See FORECITE F 9.20 n2.
F 9.22 n3 Battery On Custodial Officer: Juvenile Probation Counselor.
PC 243.1 proscribes batteries on custodial officers per PC 831 which specifies that custodial officers are public officers, not peace officers, employed to maintain custody of prisoners in a local detention facility. However, the history of PC 831 is limited to public officers responsible for maintaining custody of adult prisoners in jail, not juveniles. In re Rochelle B. (96) 49 CA4th 1212 [57 CR2d 851] held that PC 243.1 was not intended to apply to batteries on juvenile probation counselors who are not custodial officers under the meaning of PC 831 because juvenile detainees are not “prisoners.”
F 9.22 n4 Appellate Issue Alert: Pre-1997 Version.
The pre-1997 version of CJ 9.22 failed to define force and violence. (See CALJIC History CJ 9.22.)
F 9.22 n5 Battery On Custodial Officer.
PC 243.1 was superseded by amendments to PC 243(b), which made the crime formerly covered by PC 243.1 a misdemeanor instead of a felony. [Briefing on this issue is available to FORECITE subscribers. Ask for Brief Bank # B-745.]
F 9.22 n6 Battery On Custodial Officer: No Equal Protection Violation Even Though Battery Without Injury Is Punished More Severely Than Battery With Injury.
People v. Wilkinson (2004) 33 C4th 821 held that the statutory scheme pertaining to battery on a custodial officer does not violate equal protection principles even though PC 243.1 allows battery on a custodial officer without injury to be punished more severely than battery on a custodial officer with injury (PC 243.1(c)(1).)
NOTE: The lesser included analysis of the Wilkinson majority is analytically suspect for in two respects. First, it failed to apply the required elements test. (See People v. Lohbauer (81) 29 C3d 364, 369 [to be “necessarily included” the lesser offense must be within the statutory definition of the charged offense]; People v. Lopez (98) 19 C4th 282, 288; People v. Schueren (73) 10 C3d 553, 561; see also Schmuck v. U.S. (89) 489 US 705, 715 [109 SCt 1443; 103 LEd2d 734] [stated federal elements test for lesser included offenses]; Carter v. U.S. (2000) 530 US 255, 260-61 [120 SCt 2159;147 LEd2d 203] [lesser included defined as “subset” of charged offense].) Instead the Wilkinson majority concluded that there is no greater-lesser relation if more severe scenarios in one crime (normally viewed as the lesser) could possibly be more serious than less severe scenarios in the other crime (the one normally viewed as the greater). Second, Wilkinson‘s conclusion that a greater-lesser relationship doesn’t exist based on minimum punishments if the maximum punishments are the same, is also analytically suspect.
