DISCUSSION

There Was Insufficient Evidence Of Felony Child Endangerment Defendant challenges the sufficiency of evidence to support his conviction for felony child endangerment. Specifically, defendant contends “there was insufficient evidence that the child’s circumstances or conditions in the home on the date alleged in the information were likely to produce or result in great bodily harm or death.” We agree and therefore reduce defendant’s conviction to misdemeanor child endangerment. The standard of review is well established. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence, that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578.) Penal Code section 273a , subdivision (a) provides in relevant part as follows: “Any person who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death . . . having the care or custody of any child . . . willfully causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered, shall be punished by imprisonment.” (Italics added.) “ ‘ “Great bodily harm refers to significant or substantial injury and does not refer to trivial or insignificant injury.” ’ ” (People v. Clair (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 949, 954). Penal Code section 273a, subdivision (a) “is ‘intended to protect a child from an abusive situation in which the probability of serious injury is great.’ ” (People v. Sargent (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1206, 1216, italics added.) However, there is no requirement “ ‘that the actual result be great bodily injury.’ ” (Ibid.)

3 The People put forth no evidence at trial to establish that the conditions in which Officer Martin found the child were likely to produce great bodily harm or death. Officer Martin’s testimony was the only evidence presented concerning the conditions in which the child was living. The potentially dangerous items he found were some marijuana and a closed folding knife on the coffee table, some more marijuana on a dresser in the child’s bedroom, and additional marijuana and white residue on items on a dresser in the master bedroom. He did not testify how and why those findings were likely to produce great bodily injury or death. While this evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that the child was placed in a situation where her person or health might be endangered, and therefore sufficient for a misdemeanor conviction (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (b)), it was not sufficient enough to show that the conditions of defendant’s home were likely to produce great bodily harm or death. The People simply presented evidence that drugs were present and could potentially be accessed by the child. There was no evidence presented as to the potential dangerousness of the drugs had the child actually accessed them. Therefore, there was no evidence regarding the likelihood of the child suffering great bodily harm or death. The People rely heavily on People v. Perez (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1462 in contending that defendant put the child in a situation likely to produce great bodily harm. The circumstances in Perez are similar to the case here, but the defendant in Perez was convicted of misdemeanor child endangerment, not felony child endangerment. (Id. at p. 1467.) Thus, the People’s reliance on Perez is misplaced and goes against their contention that “the evidence presented to this jury is only consistent with circumstances implicating the threat of the more serious harm.” (Italics added.) Additionally, the People direct us to People v. Toney (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 618 in arguing the evidence was sufficient to find that the circumstances were likely to produce great bodily harm. The evidence presented in Toney revealed a pail of a “caustic chemical that could melt the skin on contact” and a bucket with cat litter and tubing,

4 “designed to absorb deadly fumes released during the manufacture of methamphetamine.” (Id. at p. 620). This evidence showed the potential for great bodily harm or death, which is lacking here. The jury made all the necessary findings for the misdemeanor offense; therefore, rather than reverse defendant’s conviction, we reduce the conviction to one for misdemeanor child endangerment. (Pen. Code, § 1260; People v. Enriquez (1967) 65 Cal.2d 746, 749.)

DISPOSITION

Defendant’s conviction for felony child endangerment is reduced to misdemeanor child endangerment, and the case is remanded to the trial court for resentencing.

ROBIE , Acting P. J.

We concur:

BUTZ , J.

DUARTE , J.

5