Whitehurst

People v. Whitehurst

Good Law
12 Cal. Rptr. 2d 33·1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 1118·9 Cal. App. 4th 1045·92 Daily Journal DAR 12856·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7942
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 16, 1992E009941California2,077 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hollenhorst, J.

Defendant was charged with two counts of inflicting corporal punishment on a child resulting in a traumatic condition (Pen. Code, § 273d), the first count involving Natalie P. and the second count Stephen W. After a jury trial, he was convicted of misdemeanor battery (§ 242) on count I and was acquitted on count II. Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on three years’ probation.

On appeal he raises three instructional errors: (1) the court erred in failing to instruct sua sponte on a parent’s right to discipline a child; (2) the court erred in failing to instruct on the lesser included offense of misdemeanor child beating (§ 273a, subd. (2)); and (3) the court erred in instructing on prior bad acts. We find merit to the first contention and therefore reverse.

Facts

On the morning of September 26, 1990, defendant and his wife, Donna Whitehurst, were sitting at the table in their home in Murrietta discussing custody arrangements regarding defendant’s natural son, Stephen. Donna was planning on taking Stephen as well as Donna’s five children from a prior marriage and leaving defendant.

While they were discussing custody of Stephen, Natalie,…

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.