Lara

People v. Lara

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 294·44 Cal. App. 4th 102·51 Cal. Rptr. 2d 402·96 Daily Journal DAR 3793·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2281
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 2, 1996No. B091227California2,789 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Yegan, J.

No reported California case has ever said that a battery can be committed with “criminal negligence.” We shall not be the first to so hold. With commendable candor, the Attorney General has conceded error at oral argument. We reverse because the trial court instructed the jury that appellant could be convicted of battery if he acted with “criminal negligence.” It is unnecessary to reach appellant’s remaining contentions.

Pete Lara, Jr., was convicted by jury of battery with serious bodily injury. (Pen. Code, §§ 242 and 243, subd. (d).) 1 In a bifurcated proceeding, the jury found that appellant had suffered two “strikes” within the meaning of section 667, subdivisions (d) and (e). The trial court sentenced appellant to state prison for an indeterminate term of 25 years to life pursuant to the “three strikes” law. (§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(A).)

Facts

Appellant spent the weekend at the home of his girlfriend, Michelle M. On Sunday afternoon Michelle returned home from work to find appellant watching a video and drinking beer. While Michelle straightened up the house, appellant stood on the front porch watching two teenage girls walking in front of the house. Michelle became…

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.