Matye

People v. Matye

Good Law
148 Cal. App. 4th 345·55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 678
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 7, 2007C050332California1,998 words

Opinion

Opinion

Certified for Partial Publication. [*]

Defendant Raif Lee Matye was sentenced to state prison after a jury found him guilty of both the abuse and false imprisonment of a dependent adult (Pen. Code, § 368, subds.(b)(l) & (f)), as well as other related crimes. He appeals.

In the published part of this opinion, we reject his claim that the evidence is insufficient to establish the victim was a dependent adult. As we will explain, a "dependent adult" within the meaning of Penal Code section 368 is a person between the ages of 18 and 64, "who has physical or mental limitations which restrict his or her ability to carry out normal activities or to protect his or her rights." (Pen.Code, § 368, subd. (h).) The word "restrict" is not synonymous with "preclude." Therefore, it is not necessary to prove the person is incapable of carrying out normal activities or of protecting the person's rights; it is sufficient that the person's ability to do so is limited in some significant way. So it was with the victim in this case.

In the unpublished parts of our opinion, we address defendant's other contentions.

The victim was 60-year-old Jean Estill, who suffered a massive stroke…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.